(12-10-2013 09:28 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:01 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 08:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:48 AM)bigredmachine Wrote:  

To compare some of these MAC schools to existing members of the AAC.

-Buffalo (Tulane): A good academic school in an interesting TV market for the AAC. Buffalo in of itself isn't that large like New Orleans but as a regional market Western NY and South LA are pretty big markets.

-Ohio (Tulsa): A good academic school near good recruiting grounds. Ohio is 1 hour from Columbus and 2 hours from Cincinnati, the best recruiting grounds in Ohio. Tulsa is in a state of Oklahoma that has relatively good football recruiting overall.

-NIU (North Texas): A regional state school on the edge of a major media market. NIU doesn't draw without a huge amount of winning and isn't up to par with the academics found in the AAC.

If Army wants to join, Ohio with 8 bowl appearances and 13 NCAA tourney showings is the best draft pick left on the board for a 14th, IMO. They would also be nice to have in case Cincinnati leaves for the B12 or ACC to continue a presence in that state.

Buffalo has only been to 2 bowls and has zero NCAA appearances. The potential and academics are clearly there but they have to capitalize on it.

When did North Texas join the AAC?

No and that is why NIU isn't a good fit because the school is like North Texas from an institutional profile perspective.

The MAC is a good fit for NIU institutionally. You are right there as the MAC would be better with 1 less Ohio and Michigan in it but that is only going to happen if someone leaves.

Why does the AAC need Ohio, or any other Ohio team when Cincinnati is already in the league? It seems if the intent is to create a best of the rest league, then Ohio is already covered with the clear cut #2 in the state. The upside seems minimal with the state already covered and especially since Cincinnati is superior to Ohio in both hoops and football.

True that UC is superior to Ohio in FB/BB. I can't argue with that.

Both Ohio and NIU stack up as #3 in their respective states in football attendance.

1) Illinois
2) Northwestern
3) Northern Illinois

1) Ohio State
2) Cincinnati
3) Ohio

Then you're comparing the #3 school in Illinois against #3 in Ohio. Which state is a better football recruiting state? By a large margin its Ohio.

Ohio is the 4th best football recruiting state in the country. The AAC has two schools both in Texas and Florida, the #1 and #2 states so I could see why a second school in Ohio would be desirable more so than taking a comparable school in an average recruiting state that is located further away from UC, Temple and UConn and disconnected from where Ohio has some tradition with those schools?

P.S. I do have some new info, I'll send you a PM.

(12-11-2013 04:30 AM)DBpirate Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 12:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 11:29 PM)DBpirate Wrote:  In case you guys have forgotten Boise State and Co decided they didn't want to be apart of this conference so I don't see any of these western schools as options in the near future.

The American is seen as CUSA because we took the best options available which happens to be at that time members of CUSA. But also look at the two conferences mapped out they follow a very similar membership model covering most of the same areas. This model is good for a conference that is looking to replace schools as schools leave but will not be taken seriously as a conference because it is just a conference with schools looking to move up and leave the conference.

The only team I think the conference would add right now if they wanted to join is Army for football only. Adding several schools would make us worth more as a conference but we would also have more mouths to feed as well. No combination of schools we could add right now would bring enough value to increase our worth while not taking money out of the current members pockets.

If school leaves(Uconn and Cincy) even though i think it is very unlikely i think they would be replaced with Ohio and UMASS.

Schools that would be viable options if their product on the field improves making them worth something to the conference would be Umass UAB Charlotte USM Rice. But I don't think the conference will be around long enough in this present form for any invites to be handed out.

As long as the conference continues to follow the same failed regional 12-team G5 model that every other G5 follows, then the gap between the power conferences with respect to the number on the contract, the fans in stands, the bowls available, and exposure available will continue to slowly get worse. The regional model doesn't work for G5 conferences. Its as simple as that.

Over the last 20 years the gap between the media earnings of P-5 schools and G5 schools has grown from half a million to nearly 20 million. Add another 5 to 6 million increase for the new difference in BCS earnings under the new college playoff and that number earnings difference is closer to 25 million. The small regional model has presided over this and the G5 schools continue to cling to it. Why do schools that are 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 10th fiddles in their state think that playing other close by schools will result in more money from NATIONAL broadcasters? That model might be more valuable on the regional level----but the regional entities have minimal cash for programming that isn't pro-level. So, how much are you really going to get from regional broadcasters? The answer is---Not much. So why build a product that appeals to regional networks?

A large national G5 conference with most of the larger, better funded schools, is the only model with a prayer of chance. Its the only model that hasn't been tried and alowed to develop over multiple media cycles. It probably wont change the money significantly for the first cycle, but in a contract cycle or two---I believe such a model would quickly pull away from the low paying regional conferences. Why? Because national networks broadcast nationally. A national FBS conference makes sense for a national cable network.

Why schedule the MAC if the MAC has little relevance outside of the Ohio and Michigan? Why show the AAC if it has little relevance west of Texas? But if you have a product with teams across the country---north, south, east, and west---then a game in Florida might have a bearing on a team in California--thus it might get viewers in Cali. A game in Texas might be interesting to fans in New England because they are in the same conference and might meet UConn in the championship. Thus that far away game might pull more veiwers in NE that it would have otherwise. I just think its the only model that might offer hope the typical G5 school.

I agree with what you are saying but think about it why don't these MAC games matter nationally or the AAC matter out west? Because in the BCS there isn't a reason for these games to matter.

In the BCS era we have seen for AQ conferences their exposure, value for games, and tv revenue all increase dramatically while it has been pretty much stagnant for the Non-Aq schools. This is because in the BCS system AQ teams matter to every fan and a game from any area of the country can effect another team in a completely different area of the country. All these conferences are connected together because they are all fighting for the same prize thus creating an interest in each others conference. The BCS system did not do this for the Non-Aq schools and as a result they didnt matter to each other or the AQ conferences.

The CFP does the same thing for the G5 schools that was done with the AQ schools while not messing with the P5's nut with the access bowl slot. There is one prize that every G5 school is fighting for and connects all the G5 conferences together and creates interest in each others conference. As a result exposure, ratings, value, and Revenue should increase for most if not all of the G5 conferences because these games now bring a national appeal to them with the other G5 schools. In the BCS it didn't matter how your team did because there was no prize for being the best Non-AQ conference or team as a result who cared.

So if national interest is created for the g5 conferences through the CFP you can but you don't need a nation wide conference because the national interest is already there. A national conference increases the cost for schools/fans to travel to these games. Olympic sports also suffer with increased costs and travel. I don't necessarily think schools being nationwide will increase attendance either however I do agree it would benefit your bowl line up. Regional conferences are much cheaper to travel for schools, fans, and most importantly the students(remember them). You would see rivalries form between schools because of geography, you know people who go there, etc.. With games that are cheap to get to and seen as rivalries attendance will go up because people want to be part of the rivalry and be there in person to see it live. How many Auburn fans would want to say I saw the 2013 Iron Bowl live compared to i watched it on tv or i caught the highlights.

Think about it before we knew about the CFP did CUSA schools care about the MW or the sunbelt? NO Now knowing you are all fighting for the access bowl do you care about CUSA the MW or the Sunbelt? Still probably NO but you are watching them on TV and checking up on them online to see where your school stacks up.

Good points.

One other point is the bowl system makes it almost impossible to have one national G5 conference because who would they play in bowls?

Right now the G5 leagues are set up this way:

AAC (Tweener)
MWC (Regional West)
MAC (Regional North)
CUSA (Regional South)
SBC (Starter)

SDSU, UNLV, BYU and Army could all go into the Tweener to make it a coast-to-coast conference when the TV look-in for the AAC is up.

AAC East: UConn, Army, Temple, Navy, UC, ECU, USF, UCF
AAC West: Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, BYU, UNLV, SDSU

There are other thoughts that realignment could hit the Tweener first....UConn/UCF to ACC and UC/Memphis to B12. Let's just say for example.

The AAC then would respond by trying to double down in the East with UMass, UAB, Charlotte, ODU. Tulsa, Tulane and SMU then try to rejoin CUSA because of geography. The AAC then takes Georgia State, FAU and FIU to become an Eastern Seaboard conference. CUSA then goes Southwest again with AState, ULL and Texas St. The SBC breaks up because it can't get enough schools to compete.

AAC (Regional East)
MWC (Regional West)
MAC (Regional North)
CUSA (Regional Central)
Ind: Idaho, NMSU, ULM, USA, Troy, GoS, App St

This way the G5 becomes the G4 and CFP revenue is split 4 ways instead of 5. Let's say you bump the per school payout to 14 teams

MWC (NMSU, UTEP)
AAC (Buffalo, Marshall)
MAC (App St, JMU, Delaware)
CUSA (USA)

Then you only have Idaho, ULM and Troy as independents. Idaho decides to move finally down to FCS while ULM/Troy sit around waiting for more realignment to occur. G5 to G4 downsizing accomplished.

I don't think he was saying lets have one big conference for the G5. He was referring to having one conference that combines all the top g5 teams regardless of location and put them into one national conference like you did in your top scenario.

(12-11-2013 05:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 04:30 AM)DBpirate Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 12:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 11:29 PM)DBpirate Wrote:  In case you guys have forgotten Boise State and Co decided they didn't want to be apart of this conference so I don't see any of these western schools as options in the near future.

The American is seen as CUSA because we took the best options available which happens to be at that time members of CUSA. But also look at the two conferences mapped out they follow a very similar membership model covering most of the same areas. This model is good for a conference that is looking to replace schools as schools leave but will not be taken seriously as a conference because it is just a conference with schools looking to move up and leave the conference.

The only team I think the conference would add right now if they wanted to join is Army for football only. Adding several schools would make us worth more as a conference but we would also have more mouths to feed as well. No combination of schools we could add right now would bring enough value to increase our worth while not taking money out of the current members pockets.

If school leaves(Uconn and Cincy) even though i think it is very unlikely i think they would be replaced with Ohio and UMASS.

Schools that would be viable options if their product on the field improves making them worth something to the conference would be Umass UAB Charlotte USM Rice. But I don't think the conference will be around long enough in this present form for any invites to be handed out.

As long as the conference continues to follow the same failed regional 12-team G5 model that every other G5 follows, then the gap between the power conferences with respect to the number on the contract, the fans in stands, the bowls available, and exposure available will continue to slowly get worse. The regional model doesn't work for G5 conferences. Its as simple as that.

Over the last 20 years the gap between the media earnings of P-5 schools and G5 schools has grown from half a million to nearly 20 million. Add another 5 to 6 million increase for the new difference in BCS earnings under the new college playoff and that number earnings difference is closer to 25 million. The small regional model has presided over this and the G5 schools continue to cling to it. Why do schools that are 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 10th fiddles in their state think that playing other close by schools will result in more money from NATIONAL broadcasters? That model might be more valuable on the regional level----but the regional entities have minimal cash for programming that isn't pro-level. So, how much are you really going to get from regional broadcasters? The answer is---Not much. So why build a product that appeals to regional networks?

A large national G5 conference with most of the larger, better funded schools, is the only model with a prayer of chance. Its the only model that hasn't been tried and alowed to develop over multiple media cycles. It probably wont change the money significantly for the first cycle, but in a contract cycle or two---I believe such a model would quickly pull away from the low paying regional conferences. Why? Because national networks broadcast nationally. A national FBS conference makes sense for a national cable network.

Why schedule the MAC if the MAC has little relevance outside of the Ohio and Michigan? Why show the AAC if it has little relevance west of Texas? But if you have a product with teams across the country---north, south, east, and west---then a game in Florida might have a bearing on a team in California--thus it might get viewers in Cali. A game in Texas might be interesting to fans in New England because they are in the same conference and might meet UConn in the championship. Thus that far away game might pull more veiwers in NE that it would have otherwise. I just think its the only model that might offer hope the typical G5 school.

I agree with what you are saying but think about it why don't these MAC games matter nationally or the AAC matter out west? Because in the BCS there isn't a reason for these games to matter.

In the BCS era we have seen for AQ conferences their exposure, value for games, and tv revenue all increase dramatically while it has been pretty much stagnant for the Non-Aq schools. This is because in the BCS system AQ teams matter to every fan and a game from any area of the country can effect another team in a completely different area of the country. All these conferences are connected together because they are all fighting for the same prize thus creating an interest in each others conference. The BCS system did not do this for the Non-Aq schools and as a result they didnt matter to each other or the AQ conferences.

The CFP does the same thing for the G5 schools that was done with the AQ schools while not messing with the P5's nut with the access bowl slot. There is one prize that every G5 school is fighting for and connects all the G5 conferences together and creates interest in each others conference. As a result exposure, ratings, value, and Revenue should increase for most if not all of the G5 conferences because these games now bring a national appeal to them with the other G5 schools. In the BCS it didn't matter how your team did because there was no prize for being the best Non-AQ conference or team as a result who cared.

So if national interest is created for the g5 conferences through the CFP you can but you don't need a nation wide conference because the national interest is already there. A national conference increases the cost for schools/fans to travel to these games. Olympic sports also suffer with increased costs and travel. I don't necessarily think schools being nationwide will increase attendance either however I do agree it would benefit your bowl line up. Regional conferences are much cheaper to travel for schools, fans, and most importantly the students(remember them). You would see rivalries form between schools because of geography, you know people who go there, etc.. With games that are cheap to get to and seen as rivalries attendance will go up because people want to be part of the rivalry and be there in person to see it live. How many Auburn fans would want to say I saw the 2013 Iron Bowl live compared to i watched it on tv or i caught the highlights.

Think about it before we knew about the CFP did CUSA schools care about the MW or the sunbelt? NO Now knowing you are all fighting for the access bowl do you care about CUSA the MW or the Sunbelt? Still probably NO but you are watching them on TV and checking up on them online to see where your school stacks up.

Good points.

One other point is the bowl system makes it almost impossible to have one national G5 conference because who would they play in bowls?

Right now the G5 leagues are set up this way:

AAC (Tweener)
MWC (Regional West)
MAC (Regional North)
CUSA (Regional South)
SBC (Starter)

SDSU, UNLV, BYU and Army could all go into the Tweener to make it a coast-to-coast conference when the TV look-in for the AAC is up.

AAC East: UConn, Army, Temple, Navy, UC, ECU, USF, UCF
AAC West: Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, BYU, UNLV, SDSU

There are other thoughts that realignment could hit the Tweener first....UConn/UCF to ACC and UC/Memphis to B12. Let's just say for example.

The AAC then would respond by trying to double down in the East with UMass, UAB, Charlotte, ODU. Tulsa, Tulane and SMU then try to rejoin CUSA because of geography. The AAC then takes Georgia State, FAU and FIU to become an Eastern Seaboard conference. CUSA then goes Southwest again with AState, ULL and Texas St. The SBC breaks up because it can't get enough schools to compete.

AAC (Regional East)
MWC (Regional West)
MAC (Regional North)
CUSA (Regional Central)
Ind: Idaho, NMSU, ULM, USA, Troy, GoS, App St

This way the G5 becomes the G4 and CFP revenue is split 4 ways instead of 5. Let's say you bump the per school payout to 14 teams

MWC (NMSU, UTEP)
AAC (Buffalo, Marshall)
MAC (App St, JMU, Delaware)
CUSA (USA)

Then you only have Idaho, ULM and Troy as independents. Idaho decides to move finally down to FCS while ULM/Troy sit around waiting for more realignment to occur. G5 to G4 downsizing accomplished.

At the school level, splitting the college football playoff between 4 G5 conferences rather that 5 makes no difference if the total number of teams remains the same. Again my feeling is that regional conferences for schools that are second bananas (or lower) in thier areas has not been a profitable model. It's a model that creates regional interest that appeals to regional networks. Regional networks have less money than national networks. I just feel like a national conference makes more sense if one is trying to appeal to national networks.

A national FBS conference would be unique. Ideally it would include most of the biggest names in G5 football and would likely become the 500 pound gorilla in that niche. Basically, its a home for all the schools that are right on the edge of being P5 schools, but were simply left out of the power conference they should be in because of the way events unfolded. If any conference might over time become a 6th power conference---a national best ot the rest conference would be the model that might be able to accomplish it (if it's even possible).

I will say that the idea that the CFP might increase the profile and national interst in G5 games is an interesting concept. I agree with that to an extent. It will certainly increase the national profile of the top teams in those leagues. Still, if you can create a conference that would be the 500 pound gorilla in that space, then it would seem that would be the best way for a G5 conference to leverage the G5 BCS slot into a significant increase in media income from a NATIONAL sports network.

If we don't get raided, then we should not add anyone. We need to build our brand and every school needs to continue its improvement.

(12-11-2013 08:47 AM)DBpirate Wrote:  I don't think he was saying lets have one big conference for the G5. He was referring to having one conference that combines all the top g5 teams regardless of location and put them into one national conference like you did in your top scenario.

I know.

Let's say you have only 16 teams in that tweener.....Who do they play in bowls? The MWC, MAC and CUSA.

Or lets have the MWC, CUSA and AAC alll expand to 20 schools running the MAC and SBC out of business. These leagues would have to play themselves in bowl games.

G5 conferences all expand to a 14/14 million split of CFP money

AAC (UMass, Army)
MWC (UTEP, UTSA)
CUSA (ULL, TXST)
MAC (ASU, ASU)

This is almost enough to put the SBC out of business, IMO.

If AAC expanded, TV contract would be adjusted.
adding schools would cut down on travel, help with BB tourns N bowl games.
VCU would bring in revenue with BB credits
Buffalo, getting back in NY is impairtive for conf.
UTEP, AAC almost has to cut off MWC from moving eastward

(12-11-2013 03:11 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  If AAC expanded, TV contract would be adjusted.
adding schools would cut down on travel, help with BB tourns N bowl games.
VCU would bring in revenue with BB credits
Buffalo, getting back in NY is impairtive for conf.
UTEP, AAC almost has to cut off MWC from moving eastward

Good out of the box thinking.

It may become SOP for a while that every time a G5 contract is open there will be some expansion to just to spice things up for the networks.

The days of the traditional conference are dead. Everyone is looking every possible direction to improve their position. There are schools in the MAC and the MWC that haven't had to cross the bridge yet but that time is coming.

(12-11-2013 03:11 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  If AAC expanded, TV contract would be adjusted.
adding schools would cut down on travel, help with BB tourns N bowl games.
VCU would bring in revenue with BB credits
Buffalo, getting back in NY is impairtive for conf.
UTEP, AAC almost has to cut off MWC from moving eastward

-You don't want UTEP they are on the very edge of west texas and they are some garbage.
-If we still had the Big East name we would need to get back in NY. The AAC doesn't have to be in NY. However if their athletics continue to get better I would have no problem with the add.

(12-11-2013 03:42 PM)DBpirate Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 03:11 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  If AAC expanded, TV contract would be adjusted.
adding schools would cut down on travel, help with BB tourns N bowl games.
VCU would bring in revenue with BB credits
Buffalo, getting back in NY is impairtive for conf.
UTEP, AAC almost has to cut off MWC from moving eastward

-You don't want UTEP they are on the very edge of west texas and they are some garbage.
-If we still had the Big East name we would need to get back in NY. The AAC doesn't have to be in NY. However if their athletics continue to get better I would have no problem with the add.

DB, there really is no reason to refer to them as "garbage". What have they ever done to us? I like UTEP and they would be a fine addition to either the MWC or the AAC...

AMERICAN

East
------
1-UConn (Basketball brand)
2-Army (Military Academy/National)
3-Navy (Military Academy/National)
4-Temple (Basketball brand)
5-Old Dominion (New Stadium/HR recruiting)
6-East Carolina (Carolina recruiting/huge fan following)
7-Marshall (National Name/Movie)
8-*Cincinnati (Ohio U if Cincy/BYU goes to B12)
9-UCF (FL recruiting)
10-USF (FL recruiting)

West
------
1-Memphis (Basketball/Liberty Bowl)
2-Southern Miss
3-Tulane (New Stadium/SEC Roots)
4-Houston (New Stadium/SWC roots)
5-SMU (SWC Roots)
6-New Mexico (Basketball brand)
7-Air Force (Military Academy/National)
8-Boise State (National name)
9-UNLV (Basketball brand)
10-Fresno State (Cali Recruiting)

============
*9 game schedule.
*3 Non-conf games.
*No cross over in conference. AFA/Army, AFA/Navy played non conference, do not count for league.
*Conference champ game.

*All are names people know and have heard of with Brand recognition. Not directional schools.
*Rivalries/History already established (helps sell TV viewers).
*De Facto #6 league.
*Champ of 20-team league would be best of the rest candidate for Access/Playoff.
*Schools will commit to keeping pace with P5 rules structure.
*A true "American" conference. (NE/SE, SW/W)

(12-12-2013 01:27 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  AMERICAN

East
------
1-UConn (Basketball brand)
2-Army (Military Academy/National)
3-Navy (Military Academy/National)
4-Temple (Basketball brand)
5-Old Dominion (New Stadium/HR recruiting)
6-East Carolina (Carolina recruiting/huge fan following)
7-Marshall (National Name/Movie)
8-*Cincinnati (Ohio U if Cincy/BYU goes to B12)
9-UCF (FL recruiting)
10-USF (FL recruiting)

West
------
1-Memphis (Basketball/Liberty Bowl)
2-Southern Miss
3-Tulane (New Stadium/SEC Roots)
4-Houston (New Stadium/SWC roots)
5-SMU (SWC Roots)
6-New Mexico (Basketball brand)
7-Air Force (Military Academy/National)
8-Boise State (National name)
9-UNLV (Basketball brand)
10-Fresno State (Cali Recruiting)

============
*9 game schedule.
*3 Non-conf games.
*No cross over in conference. AFA/Army, AFA/Navy played non conference, do not count for league.
*Conference champ game.

*All are names people know and have heard of with Brand recognition. Not directional schools.
*Rivalries/History already established (helps sell TV viewers).
*De Facto #6 league.
*Champ of 20-team league would be best of the rest candidate for Access/Playoff.
*Schools will commit to keeping pace with P5 rules structure.
*A true "American" conference. (NE/SE, SW/W)

I don't know if I'd go for every name on the list, but I'm all for something along the lines of what you outline. I could see a couple of MAC schools being part of the program. Out west I think you need SDSU to be included. That said, I could live with what you have here.

(12-10-2013 08:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:49 AM)CameramanJ Wrote:  I tend to think that VCU had a pretty sweet thing going with the A10 anyway.

Fixed it for you.

The A-10 is going to do just about as well as the AAC this year in basketball. I predict 5-6 bids for the A-10 this year. Oddly enough, the teams leaving the A-10 appear to be mostly (I guess UNCC is having a good year - but they're as inconsistent as always - they'll blow it like they always do) having down years (even before conference play starts). We're right there with the AAC in the ratings. We'll be fine.

GWU, UMass, Dayton, and VCU will see the top 25 this year. St Louis and Richmond are still relevant to the discussion. Its a great conference and, at least this year, every bit as good as it would have been had Temple, Butler, UNCC, and Xavier were still in it.

In fact, the A-10 is probably BETTER this year than it was with all those teams last year.

(12-12-2013 01:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 08:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:49 AM)CameramanJ Wrote:  I tend to think that VCU had a pretty sweet thing going with the A10 anyway.

Fixed it for you.

The A-10 is going to do just about as well as the AAC this year in basketball. I predict 5-6 bids for the A-10 this year. Oddly enough, the teams leaving the A-10 appear to be mostly (I guess UNCC is having a good year - but they're as inconsistent as always - they'll blow it like they always do) having down years (even before conference play starts). We're right there with the AAC in the ratings. We'll be fine.

GWU, UMass, Dayton, and VCU will see the top 25 this year. St Louis and Richmond are still relevant to the discussion. Its a great conference and, at least this year, every bit as good as it would have been had Temple, Butler, UNCC, and Xavier were still in it.

In fact, the A-10 is probably BETTER this year than it was with all those teams last year.

Two or 3 more of those teams will be gone next year when the Big East expands to at least 12. That's when I could see the math changing for A-10 members. That's when the AAC could move on a couple of A-10 basketball schools. Say the Big East takes St Louis and Dayton.

I could see the AAC picking up VCU and maybe one other. Looking at a league that has every game nationally televised and contains a lineup of UConn, Cinci, Memphis, Temple, VCU, and Richmond might look pretty good to VCU and Richmond.

(12-12-2013 03:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 01:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 08:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:49 AM)CameramanJ Wrote:  I tend to think that VCU had a pretty sweet thing going with the A10 anyway.

Fixed it for you.

The A-10 is going to do just about as well as the AAC this year in basketball. I predict 5-6 bids for the A-10 this year. Oddly enough, the teams leaving the A-10 appear to be mostly (I guess UNCC is having a good year - but they're as inconsistent as always - they'll blow it like they always do) having down years (even before conference play starts). We're right there with the AAC in the ratings. We'll be fine.

GWU, UMass, Dayton, and VCU will see the top 25 this year. St Louis and Richmond are still relevant to the discussion. Its a great conference and, at least this year, every bit as good as it would have been had Temple, Butler, UNCC, and Xavier were still in it.

In fact, the A-10 is probably BETTER this year than it was with all those teams last year.

Two or 3 more of those teams will be gone next year when the Big East expands to at least 12. That's when I could see the math changing for A-10 members. That's when the AAC could move on a couple of A-10 basketball schools. Say the Big East takes St Louis and Dayton.

I could see the AAC picking up VCU and maybe one other. Looking at a league that has every game nationally televised and contains a lineup of UConn, Cinci, Memphis, Temple, VCU, and Richmond might look pretty good to VCU and Richmond.

Why would the AAC go to basketball onlies again? Its what split the conference last time.

(12-12-2013 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why would the AAC go to basketball onlies again? Its what split the conference last time.

Was it having BBall onlies or the imbalance between number of BBall and FB schools? What really hemmed the Old Big East in when they were in a "raid or be raided" situation, with the ACC in particular, was that they had so many more BBall than FB schools.

Therefore the idea to only allow Olympic-sport-only schools if they pair up with FB-only schools, one of which the American is already slated to have in Navy ... and they might have a second if they were to expand to include Army as well.

I personally don't see the American going the partial membership route.

I think they actually had enough foresight to name the league something that would be inclusive if the national conference comes to pass. They may have to to keep pace with the P5. Especially if it's a half team split, a 20 member best of the rest could cut the mustard, while leaving the sun belts and central michigans of the world to not make the cut.

Keeping one big league (and not a bunch of small ones) would tilt the numbers in the favor of the power leagues. And even though the American would never be one of the power 5 per se, it certainly would be the de facto #6, play it's role well, and in some cases jump up to bite the others a bit in some years. Lots of "known" schools out there.

(12-11-2013 03:42 PM)DBpirate Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 03:11 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  If AAC expanded, TV contract would be adjusted.
adding schools would cut down on travel, help with BB tourns N bowl games.
VCU would bring in revenue with BB credits
Buffalo, getting back in NY is impairtive for conf.
UTEP, AAC almost has to cut off MWC from moving eastward

-You don't want UTEP they are on the very edge of west texas and they are some garbage.

WOW!!! You're a little pos

(12-12-2013 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 03:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 01:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 08:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 09:49 AM)CameramanJ Wrote:  I tend to think that VCU had a pretty sweet thing going with the A10 anyway.

Fixed it for you.

The A-10 is going to do just about as well as the AAC this year in basketball. I predict 5-6 bids for the A-10 this year. Oddly enough, the teams leaving the A-10 appear to be mostly (I guess UNCC is having a good year - but they're as inconsistent as always - they'll blow it like they always do) having down years (even before conference play starts). We're right there with the AAC in the ratings. We'll be fine.

GWU, UMass, Dayton, and VCU will see the top 25 this year. St Louis and Richmond are still relevant to the discussion. Its a great conference and, at least this year, every bit as good as it would have been had Temple, Butler, UNCC, and Xavier were still in it.

In fact, the A-10 is probably BETTER this year than it was with all those teams last year.

Two or 3 more of those teams will be gone next year when the Big East expands to at least 12. That's when I could see the math changing for A-10 members. That's when the AAC could move on a couple of A-10 basketball schools. Say the Big East takes St Louis and Dayton.

I could see the AAC picking up VCU and maybe one other. Looking at a league that has every game nationally televised and contains a lineup of UConn, Cinci, Memphis, Temple, VCU, and Richmond might look pretty good to VCU and Richmond.

Why would the AAC go to basketball onlies again? Its what split the conference last time.

So we do better in basketball? lol seems pretty straightforward what the motivation would be if they do it. Obviously, there are negatives as well.

(12-11-2013 03:42 PM)DBpirate Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 03:11 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  If AAC expanded, TV contract would be adjusted.
adding schools would cut down on travel, help with BB tourns N bowl games.
VCU would bring in revenue with BB credits
Buffalo, getting back in NY is impairtive for conf.
UTEP, AAC almost has to cut off MWC from moving eastward

-You don't want UTEP they are on the very edge of west texas and they are some garbage.
-If we still had the Big East name we would need to get back in NY. The AAC doesn't have to be in NY. However if their athletics continue to get better I would have no problem with the add.

That's a pretty ignorant remark but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't think UTEP will be asked to join the AAC anytime soon but they could do a lot worse. El Paso is still a smallish market but has improved to 91st from 98th in recent years and still growing. Division 1 football prospects have been few in the past but that is also growing with a good number of players being recruited now by division 1 coaches. UTEP itself has a good athletic department, good basketball for sure with good fanbase. Football certainly needs to improve but even with a 2 win season with a 1st year head coach, UTEP averaged over 28k and has proven that with a decent team they can avg well over 40k. But UTEP is probably where they need to be right now and would be a good candidate for either the MWC should they need a school and the AAC if they ever decide to expand.

EP recruiting