https://t.co/NChh5x7FdN?amp=1

goes over a lot-- but we don't care for most of it....

summary of important part--

- unlikely to get a 2nd waiver...must push for legislation to stay at 11, will pursue if no one worthy is available

- waiver was to buy time to research (for addition or pushing legislation).. really doesn't want to add a poor team

tortora says he loves division and sad its gone..
- aresco said he loved divisions aswell, so did members... says "it might come back" , it was the preference

"aac not looking, but alert"

says geography doesnt matter if its a football only addition (the fact he is talking about football only shows where our mind is)..{he brought this up himself}

i got the vibe we want to go to 12 but it has to be a good team and they have to want to join, will not lobby..
(i think we want to go byu/mwc)

Aresco is interesting in that he doesn't like getting backed into a corner on issues. When UConn moved down, he said that 11 teams, no divisions and a championship (like the big 12, but w/o the round robin) would be our best chance to crown the best champion. I agree with this.

Now that he only has a 2-year waiver and will likely HAVE to pick up a football member, he's talking about how we all love divisions and would like to get back to them. And if we add a MAC/CUSA team, they are definitely a powerhouse program on the rise.

If the legislation actually ends up changing, he will have wanted 11 teams and no divisions all along and doesn't recall any mention of wanting divisions back and divisions are stupid and no teams were worth adding.

No matter what happens, it was what he was hoping for, and we're all very pleased.

If football-only, the only options I can think of would be:
Army (Patriot)
Air Force (Summit or Mt West)
Boise St (Big West, Big Sky, or Mt West)
BYU (WCC)

Any other reasonable options? With divisions, I could see Navy pressing for San Diego St. The Aztecs would be in the West division and there is a huge Naval presence in that local area. Non-football sports to Big West.

Doesn't sound like the AAC will be adding any CUSA/Belt/MAC members. It's gonna be FB only from MWC usual suspects, or somehow BYU/Army.

After listening to the podcast, I think adding a 12th school is the most likely outcome after the waiver expires.

(11-07-2019 02:41 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If football-only, the only options I can think of would be:
Army (Patriot)
Air Force (Summit or Mt West)
Boise St (Big West, Big Sky, or Mt West)
BYU (WCC)

Any other reasonable options? With divisions, I could see Navy pressing for San Diego St. The Aztecs would be in the West division and there is a huge Naval presence in that local area. Non-football sports to Big West.

App State

If it's football only: BYU, Army, Air Force, Boise in that order
If it's all sports: BYU (Highly Unlikely), San Diego St., Colorado State, or Georgia State/Southern (whatever the better one is I forget).

When the MW TV contract gets signed, that is when some parts may start moving. One surprise is that BYU has yet to announce their supposed new contract with ESPN.

I think Air Force would be willing to move due kickoff times. Seems like we are stuck with those 8:30 pm+ start times. Not only for football but basketball as well:

(11-07-2019 02:54 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  If it's football only: BYU, Army, Air Force, Boise in that order
If it's all sports: BYU (Highly Unlikely), San Diego St., Colorado State, or Georgia State/Southern (whatever the better one is I forget).

Sounds like Aresco doesn't believe we will get the permanent rule change, and we will add a 12th team, probably football only, in 2 years.

I agree with your football only list, although Aresco seems luke warm on Boise.

All sports, I don't see us taking any MWC team.

I think we miss on our A List (unless Air Force relents), and take a compromise 12th school, football only, like Colorado State or SDSU, perhaps (just guessing).

I doubt any of the usual CUSA or other suspects will be the choice, all sports. We'll take the best football only anywhere in the country, and either stay at 11 for basketball, or take somebody like VCU, which I doubt.

Stepping back, what are the criteria used for candidate evaluation?

My guess:
1. Value added to media deal.
2. Likelihood to win at a high level in the future (based on past results, facilities, and donor and fan support).
3. Expenses incurred (e.g., travel). Dovetails with geography.
4. Willingness to pay entry fee and take less media share for a period of time.
5. Academics.

(11-07-2019 02:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Aresco is interesting in that he doesn't like getting backed into a corner on issues. When UConn moved down, he said that 11 teams, no divisions and a championship (like the big 12, but w/o the round robin) would be our best chance to crown the best champion. I agree with this.

Now that he only has a 2-year waiver and will likely HAVE to pick up a football member, he's talking about how we all love divisions and would like to get back to them. And if we add a MAC/CUSA team, they are definitely a powerhouse program on the rise.

If the legislation actually ends up changing, he will have wanted 11 teams and no divisions all along and doesn't recall any mention of wanting divisions back and divisions are stupid and no teams were worth adding.

No matter what happens, it was what he was hoping for, and we're all very pleased.

I didnt get that at all.

He said that we wanted to stay at 11 teams rather than add a team that dilutes the brand. Nothings changed there.

He said we liked divisions and were not looking to change. Thats true. If UConn had not left we would still have divisions. So, nothing new or different there.

He has always said the waiver is for 2 years---but has also said that gives us breathing room to either pass legislation making the non-round robin CCG permanent or to find another member. So, really, nothing new there.

He said nothing about adding a CUSA or MAC team. He said there are a "handful of teams" that enhance the conference brand. I take that to mean Army, Air Force, and BYU. The fact he went on to mention that geography doesnt matter for football only additions would tend to support that view. I dont think there is any appetite to gamble on adding a CUSA/MAC/Sunbelt "project" school. He said absolutely nothing that would point toward that course of action being probable.

My sense is the conference presidents have reached the same basic belief that the members of this message board have reached. There are only 3 teams that make any sense as additions and they are all football only additions. They also have figured out there is little to be gained in chasing after those schools. We have let everyone know that if you are interested in joining, give us call---we are ready to talk. We have also made it clear that there will be no 2012 style full press effort to convince anyone to join this time around. Furthermore, it would appear that the AAC presidents have also figured out that all of the schools who HAVE contacted us expressing an interest in joining would likely serve only to diminish the brand---and are therefor not viable additions at this time.

Here is where I differ from many of the people here--I dont think we will add a school in 2 years if the options remain as poor as they are today. I think thats why he was kind of non-committal about the CCG beyond the next 2 years.

(11-07-2019 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 02:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Aresco is interesting in that he doesn't like getting backed into a corner on issues. When UConn moved down, he said that 11 teams, no divisions and a championship (like the big 12, but w/o the round robin) would be our best chance to crown the best champion. I agree with this.

Now that he only has a 2-year waiver and will likely HAVE to pick up a football member, he's talking about how we all love divisions and would like to get back to them. And if we add a MAC/CUSA team, they are definitely a powerhouse program on the rise.

If the legislation actually ends up changing, he will have wanted 11 teams and no divisions all along and doesn't recall any mention of wanting divisions back and divisions are stupid and no teams were worth adding.

No matter what happens, it was what he was hoping for, and we're all very pleased.

I didnt get that at all.

He said that we wanted to stay at 11 teams rather than add a team that dilutes the brand. Nothings changed there.

He said we liked divisions and were not looking to change. Thats true. If UConn had not left we would still have divisions. So, nothing new or different there.

He has always said the waiver is for 2 years---but has also said that gives us breathing room to either pass legislation making the non-round robin CCG permanent or to find another member. So, really, nothing new there.

He said nothing about adding a CUSA or MAC team. He said there are a "handful of teams" that enhance the conference brand. I take that to mean Army, Air Force, and BYU. The fact he went on to mention that geography doesnt matter for football only additions would tend to support that view. I dont think there is any appetite to gamble on adding a CUSA/MAC/Sunbelt "project" school. He said absolutely nothing that would point toward that course of action being probable.

My sense is the conference presidents have reached the same basic belief that the members of this message board have reached. There are only 3 teams that make any sense as additions and they are all football only additions. They also have figured out there is little to be gained in chasing after those schools. We have let everyone know that if you are interested in joining, give us call---we are ready to talk. We have also made it clear that there will be no 2012 style full press effort to convince anyone to join this time around. Furthermore, it would appear that the AAC presidents have also figured out that all of the schools who HAVE contacted us expressing an interest in joining would likely serve only to diminish the brand---and are therefor not viable additions at this time.

Here is where I differ from many of the people here--I dont think we will add a school in 2 years if the options remain as poor as they are today. I think thats why he was kind of non-committal about the CCG beyond the next 2 years.

I was with you until the last paragraph. I imagine the CCG is too valuable to let go, and we will take a compromise 12th team to save it, as a last resort. But probably football only, like CSU or SDSU. And maybe just keep basketball at 11.

(11-07-2019 04:03 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 02:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Aresco is interesting in that he doesn't like getting backed into a corner on issues. When UConn moved down, he said that 11 teams, no divisions and a championship (like the big 12, but w/o the round robin) would be our best chance to crown the best champion. I agree with this.

Now that he only has a 2-year waiver and will likely HAVE to pick up a football member, he's talking about how we all love divisions and would like to get back to them. And if we add a MAC/CUSA team, they are definitely a powerhouse program on the rise.

If the legislation actually ends up changing, he will have wanted 11 teams and no divisions all along and doesn't recall any mention of wanting divisions back and divisions are stupid and no teams were worth adding.

No matter what happens, it was what he was hoping for, and we're all very pleased.

I didnt get that at all.

He said that we wanted to stay at 11 teams rather than add a team that dilutes the brand. Nothings changed there.

He said we liked divisions and were not looking to change. Thats true. If UConn had not left we would still have divisions. So, nothing new or different there.

He has always said the waiver is for 2 years---but has also said that gives us breathing room to either pass legislation making the non-round robin CCG permanent or to find another member. So, really, nothing new there.

He said nothing about adding a CUSA or MAC team. He said there are a "handful of teams" that enhance the conference brand. I take that to mean Army, Air Force, and BYU. The fact he went on to mention that geography doesnt matter for football only additions would tend to support that view. I dont think there is any appetite to gamble on adding a CUSA/MAC/Sunbelt "project" school. He said absolutely nothing that would point toward that course of action being probable.

My sense is the conference presidents have reached the same basic belief that the members of this message board have reached. There are only 3 teams that make any sense as additions and they are all football only additions. They also have figured out there is little to be gained in chasing after those schools. We have let everyone know that if you are interested in joining, give us call---we are ready to talk. We have also made it clear that there will be no 2012 style full press effort to convince anyone to join this time around. Furthermore, it would appear that the AAC presidents have also figured out that all of the schools who HAVE contacted us expressing an interest in joining would likely serve only to diminish the brand---and are therefor not viable additions at this time.

Here is where I differ from many of the people here--I dont think we will add a school in 2 years if the options remain as poor as they are today. I think thats why he was kind of non-committal about the CCG beyond the next 2 years.

I was with you until the last paragraph. I imagine the CCG is too valuable to let go, and we will take a compromise 12th team to save it, as a last resort. But probably football only, like CSU or SDSU. And maybe just keep basketball at 11.

I dont disagree---but its clear that he has been non-committal about its existence beyond the next two years (and not just in this interview). I think it comes down to a decision about the lesser of three possible evils in 2 years. If AF, BYU, or Army are all still uninterested in 2 years---then we will have to decide which of these unpleasant things we will have to deal with---

1) Add a team that dilutes the brand (permanent condition that we will all be stuck with forever)

or

2) No CCG (a temporary condition).

or

3) Play uneven divisions (another temporary condition).


Of the 3, I suspect we will end up landing on #3 as it is a "temporary condition", has the least downside for the conference, and is sustainable for several years (remember what he said about how long the Big10 played with 11 teams).

(11-07-2019 01:56 PM)pesik Wrote:  https://t.co/NChh5x7FdN?amp=1

goes over a lot-- but we don't care for most of it....

summary of important part--

- unlikely to get a 2nd waiver...must push for legislation to stay at 11, will pursue if no one worthy is available

- waiver was to buy time to research (for addition or pushing legislation).. really doesn't want to add a poor team

tortora says he loves division and sad its gone..
- aresco said he loved divisions aswell, so did members... says "it might come back" , it was the preference

"aac not looking, but alert"

says geography doesnt matter if its a football only addition (the fact he is talking about football only shows where our mind is)..{he brought this up himself}

i got the vibe we want to go to 12 but it has to be a good team and they have to want to join, will not lobby..
(i think we want to go byu/mwc)

This is where I disagree with Aresco. Geography does matter. Need to fill the empty geo spaces and hence, stadiums. More important than landing a western team or the special-planet loving Mormons. Army is fine, but give me a large state Carnegie research U that commits (or is committing) to football any day. And yes, there are some nearby (Atlanta, Norfolk, Birmingham). Need to think longterm and rivalries. Not just the here and now.

Buffalo doesn't do it for me, either. Even though they're in NY, they're too far away, too cold, and too interested in NFL to care about NCAA.

No suprise ECU fans clamoring for Appy State, ODU, GSU and/or UAB.

(11-07-2019 04:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  No suprise ECU fans clamoring for Appy State, ODU, GSU and/or UAB.

It appears ECU would be happier back in CUSA. I would rather remove a member and get down to 12 schools over adding a subpar member. No to CUSA, SBC, etc.

(11-07-2019 01:56 PM)pesik Wrote:  https://t.co/NChh5x7FdN?amp=1

says geography doesnt matter if its a football only addition (the fact he is talking about football only shows where our mind is)..{he brought this up himself}

So geography matters when it comes to Olympic sports and conference affiliation. Interesting take.

(11-07-2019 03:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2019 02:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Aresco is interesting in that he doesn't like getting backed into a corner on issues. When UConn moved down, he said that 11 teams, no divisions and a championship (like the big 12, but w/o the round robin) would be our best chance to crown the best champion. I agree with this.

Now that he only has a 2-year waiver and will likely HAVE to pick up a football member, he's talking about how we all love divisions and would like to get back to them. And if we add a MAC/CUSA team, they are definitely a powerhouse program on the rise.

If the legislation actually ends up changing, he will have wanted 11 teams and no divisions all along and doesn't recall any mention of wanting divisions back and divisions are stupid and no teams were worth adding.

No matter what happens, it was what he was hoping for, and we're all very pleased.

I didnt get that at all.

He said that we wanted to stay at 11 teams rather than add a team that dilutes the brand. Nothings changed there.

He said we liked divisions and were not looking to change. Thats true. If UConn had not left we would still have divisions. So, nothing new or different there.

He has always said the waiver is for 2 years---but has also said that gives us breathing room to either pass legislation making the non-round robin CCG permanent or to find another member. So, really, nothing new there.

He said nothing about adding a CUSA or MAC team. He said there are a "handful of teams" that enhance the conference brand. I take that to mean Army, Air Force, and BYU. The fact he went on to mention that geography doesnt matter for football only additions would tend to support that view. I dont think there is any appetite to gamble on adding a CUSA/MAC/Sunbelt "project" school. He said absolutely nothing that would point toward that course of action being probable.

My sense is the conference presidents have reached the same basic belief that the members of this message board have reached. There are only 3 teams that make any sense as additions and they are all football only additions. They also have figured out there is little to be gained in chasing after those schools. We have let everyone know that if you are interested in joining, give us call---we are ready to talk. We have also made it clear that there will be no 2012 style full press effort to convince anyone to join this time around. Furthermore, it would appear that the AAC presidents have also figured out that all of the schools who HAVE contacted us expressing an interest in joining would likely serve only to diminish the brand---and are therefor not viable additions at this time.

Here is where I differ from many of the people here--I dont think we will add a school in 2 years if the options remain as poor as they are today. I think thats why he was kind of non-committal about the CCG beyond the next 2 years.

He definitely said 11 with a championship was best before we were granted the waiver. At no point before that (unless you can find a quote saying otherwise) did he say he'd prefer divisions.

He didn't mention adding a CUSA/MAC team yet because we haven't added one yet. If we did, it would be a a great idea, and would have been the idea all along.

I agree. I would rather cut one and go down to 10 than dilute the AAC brand any farther. Getting rid of UConn football helps, getting rid of another and roll the dice on seeing how far we can go.

(11-07-2019 04:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  No suprise ECU fans clamoring for Appy State, ODU, GSU and/or UAB.

Negative on all fronts. I'd be least pissed about UAB I guess. Adding App State or ODU would pretty much kill the recruiting advantage we still have over them in place that we recruit heavily.

UAB is not a good choice, but the best of those 4. GSU (doesn't matter which GSU you're talking about) is garbage.

I'm on the BYU or nobody train. I'd rather go back to divisions and have stupid scheduling than add anyone else.