(04-07-2024 07:21 AM)Yosef181 Wrote: (04-06-2024 03:52 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: My criticism of some Sun Belt posters, Y-181, is that they are dismissive of the AAC for what they feel is a misguided emphasis on markets. They mock some league members for being located in big markets and having no fan support (which is worth constructive criticism, no doubt). But they fail to either see or acknowledge that the AAC members' locations are helpful (at least on paper) for football and basketball recruiting. The list of cities you note ... as a Memphis Tiger basketball fan, that's what I want to see.
As I've posted previously, markets can be valuable beyond fan base/attendance.
I'll call this out directly: The AAC (and CUSA) strategy was (and still is) a completely misguided emphasis on markets, and it's starting to show in conference rankings (yes, there's more to a conference than its top team, for anyone out there who thinks otherwise. Can't just ride the coattails of one successful school forever).
I hope you realize by now why fans of Sun Belt schools poke fun at the "marketz" strategy not working. That strategy screwed most of the SBC schools into being "left behind", schools which definitely had the merit at the time to move forward. You think App State wanted to move to the SBC from FCS? No, we wanted CUSA, but UNC-Charlotte, a school which didn't even have a football program at the time, was picked while we were told No. You think Southern Miss and Marshall wanted to stay in CUSA while over a dozen schools passed them in the realignment pecking order? Of course not, they watched interest in their programs decline because of it. You think 2010 football champions Troy and 2011 + 2012 football champions Arkansas State liked seeing market schools like North Texas and FAU being promoted while they were left behind? No, because Troy and Arkansas State were proving their worth with on-field results, that they had better programs than the market teams. North Texas had 8 consecutive losing seasons before moving to CUSA for more money. FAU had 4 consecutive losing seasons before moving to CUSA for more money. These schools were chosen for off-field reasons (marketz), not on-field results.
You better believe we're going to be happy about being better than the schools who wanted nothing to do with us (see my earlier links to Massey, Colley, and Bleacher Report's algorithm of AP Top 25 + FPI + bowl results). You better believe we're going to have a positive reaction when we rise above conferences who didn't want us.
And sure, recruiting locations are important, but that doesn't seem to be helping UNC-Charlotte, so...being in a city can't mean that much. To be fair, the same is true for Georgia State in the SBC, which only has 1 season of 8+ wins in 11 years.
I agree with you (and strongly overall) that the AAC seemingly placed excessive emphasis on markets, Y-181. What I don't agree with (and not suggesting you feel this way) is the notion that markets have limited (or even zero) value. Is that what you think. If so, that is very simplistic way of looking at it.
And to say schools were added for markets without acknowledging 1. their potential to get better in football; 2. basketball was a factor; 3. shared-league history was a consideration and 4. academics were a factor ... is shortsighted. For example, UAB, Charlotte and North Texas had variously been aligned in the past in leagues with Tulsa, Wichita, Memphis and Tulane. UAB and Charlotte at the time of their adding were much more appealing, from a men's hoops perspective, than any of the Sun Belt members you note (just like AppState was more appealing in football than any of the six schools that were invited).
Your focus seems to be overwhelmingly on football. And the new-look AAC has had only one football season to prove itself (the Belt was better last year and I give full credit). More time is needed for this to play out. I'm not particularly optimistic. But, again, I want to see at least four more seasons (if not five, with Army in and SMU out) before I give a grade on the additions. You don't lose Cincy, Houston, UCF and, now, SMU in a brief period and immediately be equal or better. Time is required.
I've posted many times: The AAC was initially formed as essentially a league for city-located universities and for the "leftover highest-level athletics programs" located from Texas to the East. I'm not sure conference officials ever truly wanted to offer the "best" football of the "G" leagues (though they would never say that publicly) after the announcement that Cincinnati, Houston and UCF were leaving. Had they, they would have wanted Southern Miss, AppSt and Marshall. Rather, they likely took a more realistic and focused approach and said "Let's be the best all-round urban-centric league that a group conference can be.
There are many Sun Belt members that are worthy of and qualified for AAC membership (not that they would want that today). The fact that some (not all) SBC schools don't fit the AAC model (due to non-urban locations, so-so academics, low-profile hoops and/or modest histories of playing at the highest levels of college sports) does not mean they could not ramp up fast if joining either the AAC or the Mountain West.
I'm a Vanderbilt fan of 50 years. Many SEC fans don't want my school in the league. We get dissed much like some Belt schools do (as you noted) by some fans of AAC schools. So I can kind of relate to your overall argument.
The Sun Belt will be fine. And so will the AAC. Two very different leagues. Different models. Different approaches. Different membership histories. You likely feel the SBC is better for AppState than would be the AAC. I can see that. In contrast, I feel that the AAC is better for Memphis than would be the Belt.
I always enjoy our exchanges.
/
AAC Targets Next Commish
