(02-26-2014 04:19 PM)Bull Wrote:  The coast to coast conference was already tried once... it crashed and burned, it was the subject of much ridicule. People complained the entire time. I doubt seriously if it will ever be attempted again. Let there be both western and eastern conferences at the same relative 'level'. Heck, many already grouse about the AACs footprint. I think going Texas eastward is just fine.

The old BE, with a much bigger carrot to dangle, could not get BYU or AFA to seriously consider joining.

It was never tried. Nobody complained. Nobody ever has ever played a single game in a national conference. The only reason the conference took shots because it was called the Big EAST, but had west coast teams. How is a west coast team in the American Athletic Conference out of place?

The truth is, we don't know how it would work. My guess is that a national conference featuring large markets and most of the better known G5 names would quickly become the most recognized, most followed, most popular, and most watched G5 conference. Such a cross-country conference would likely be very attractive to major sports networks since they broadcast games NATIONAlLY. It's a perfect fit. Through its size and ability to have a school in most significant regions of the country, it might be the only G5 model that can generate a significant increase in G5 pay. The national G5 best of the rest conference might be the way to create a "tweener" conference that might eventually be able to earn its members half of what P5 schools make.

The thing is, there is very little real risk in trying it. The worst thing that would happens is that it would fail to make enough to overcome travel costs. Big deal. The schools involved would just disband and regroup into regional conferences. No long term damage. No big deal.

(02-27-2014 03:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 04:19 PM)Bull Wrote:  The coast to coast conference was already tried once... it crashed and burned, it was the subject of much ridicule. People complained the entire time. I doubt seriously if it will ever be attempted again. Let there be both western and eastern conferences at the same relative 'level'. Heck, many already grouse about the AACs footprint. I think going Texas eastward is just fine.

The old BE, with a much bigger carrot to dangle, could not get BYU or AFA to seriously consider joining.

It was never tried. Nobody complained. Nobody ever has ever played a single game in a national conference. The only reason the conference took shots because it was called the Big EAST, but had west coast teams. How is a west coast team in the American Athletic Conference out of place?

The truth is, we don't know how it would work. My guess is that a national conference featuring large markets and most of the better known G5 names would quickly become the most recognized, most followed, most popular, and most watched G5 conference. Such a cross-country conference would likely be very attractive to major sports networks since they broadcast games NATIONAlLY. It's a perfect fit. Through its size and ability to have a school in most significant regions of the country, it might be the only G5 model that can generate a significant increase in G5 pay. The national G5 best of the rest conference might be the way to create a "tweener" conference that might eventually be able to earn its members half of what P5 schools make.

The thing is, there is very little real risk in trying it. The worst thing that would happens is that it would fail to make enough to overcome travel costs. Big deal. The schools involved would just disband and regroup into regional conferences. No long term damage. No big deal.

It was tried, and the TV contract was still only going to be $2 million -3 million with BSU and SDSU in the mix along with Louisville and Rutgers. That already proves it would not work.
Same with the proposed MW and CUSA merger/alliance. After many months of evaluation with TV and School AD's, it was determine it wasn't going to be a feasible project.
Trying to put a so called 'tweener' conference spread out across the whole country isn't going to make it a 'tweener' conference.
In fact the MW and AAC are the 'tweener' conferences. We are both above the Sunbelt, MAC and CUSA.

Also, regrouping into regional conferences isn't as easy as it seems and yes there is long term damage because it would be know that you were part of a conference that couldn't make it work and you end up where you should have been all along. Best for each conference to make the best and grow. The MW has accepted it, it looks like the AAC hasn't....yet.

(02-27-2014 03:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The truth is, we don't know how it would work. My guess is that a national conference featuring large markets and most of the better known G5 names would quickly become the most recognized, most followed, most popular, and most watched G5 conference. .

As a football conference it might work somewhat if only because you put all of the "best of the rest" in one group. However, the only way it would work, is if you dismantled the AAC, and rebuilt it with the truly best of the best, coast to coast, and created a 12 team league (no more than 12, as you don't want to "water it down." Unfortunately that means some current teams would end up getting left out. Nobody wants that. Taking the American, as currently configured, and adding a few western teams would not help that, as the league would be too bloated to be functionally serve it's designed purpose.

(02-27-2014 09:37 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 03:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 04:19 PM)Bull Wrote:  The coast to coast conference was already tried once... it crashed and burned, it was the subject of much ridicule. People complained the entire time. I doubt seriously if it will ever be attempted again. Let there be both western and eastern conferences at the same relative 'level'. Heck, many already grouse about the AACs footprint. I think going Texas eastward is just fine.

The old BE, with a much bigger carrot to dangle, could not get BYU or AFA to seriously consider joining.

It was never tried. Nobody complained. Nobody ever has ever played a single game in a national conference. The only reason the conference took shots because it was called the Big EAST, but had west coast teams. How is a west coast team in the American Athletic Conference out of place?

The truth is, we don't know how it would work. My guess is that a national conference featuring large markets and most of the better known G5 names would quickly become the most recognized, most followed, most popular, and most watched G5 conference. Such a cross-country conference would likely be very attractive to major sports networks since they broadcast games NATIONAlLY. It's a perfect fit. Through its size and ability to have a school in most significant regions of the country, it might be the only G5 model that can generate a significant increase in G5 pay. The national G5 best of the rest conference might be the way to create a "tweener" conference that might eventually be able to earn its members half of what P5 schools make.

The thing is, there is very little real risk in trying it. The worst thing that would happens is that it would fail to make enough to overcome travel costs. Big deal. The schools involved would just disband and regroup into regional conferences. No long term damage. No big deal.

It was tried, and the TV contract was still only going to be $2 million -3 million with BSU and SDSU in the mix along with Louisville and Rutgers. That already proves it would not work.
Same with the proposed MW and CUSA merger/alliance. After many months of evaluation with TV and School AD's, it was determine it wasn't going to be a feasible project.
Trying to put a so called 'tweener' conference spread out across the whole country isn't going to make it a 'tweener' conference.
In fact the MW and AAC are the 'tweener' conferences. We are both above the Sunbelt, MAC and CUSA.

Also, regrouping into regional conferences isn't as easy as it seems and yes there is long term damage because it would be know that you were part of a conference that couldn't make it work and you end up where you should have been all along. Best for each conference to make the best and grow. The MW has accepted it, it looks like the AAC hasn't....yet.

No it wasn't tried. Thats why the value was only 2-3 million (by the way, isn't 3 million 50% more than we are currently being paid?). In order to become a tweener conference it has to become the most popular, most well known, most followed, and most watched G5 conference. You can't become the most powerful conference or prove you have added value to tv when you have never even play a game.

Let's not forget, in the final analysis, the national concept is still just a shuffeling of the G5 deck and isn't going to be instantly much more valuable than any other G5 conference. The key is that its size, it's national reach, the more well known nature of its members, and it's superior television coverage would allow it to develop what other regional G5 conferences have failed to do. The national G5 conference would be a model that could, like P5 conferences, actually be of some interest on a national scale rather than just some small regional curiosity. It wouldn't happen immediately, but over a couple of contract cycles, I do believe the media earnings of a national conference would slowly pull away from its regional G5 "peers".

Its not a tweener conference just because it makes one million more per team than the MAC---at least that's not what I'd call a tweener conference. If we were making 6-12 million, and the rest of the G5 was making .5-3 million a team, that's more what I mean. We need to approach half of the P5 media earnings I think to be truley considered a tier by ourselves.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you discuss the risk of failure. There is no risk. If it fails, it fails. The schools involved simply reform into regional conferences. It's not hard to do. There is no damage because everyone knows they were in a conference that failed. In fact---isn't the AAC exactly that--a conference that failed? It rose from the ashes of the Big East divorce. CUSA rose from the destruction of the Metro. The Mountain West developed due to the failure of the WAC. The idea that the schools are tainted somehow if the concept of a national conference fails is silly. Conferences fail--the schools go on. Schools are not damaged when a new venture fails---they are only damaged when a great conference that is working breaks apart leaving them stuck in a smaller, less succucessful conference. Half of the AAC knows exactly how that feels.

(02-27-2014 09:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 03:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The truth is, we don't know how it would work. My guess is that a national conference featuring large markets and most of the better known G5 names would quickly become the most recognized, most followed, most popular, and most watched G5 conference. .

As a football conference it might work somewhat if only because you put all of the "best of the rest" in one group. However, the only way it would work, is if you dismantled the AAC, and rebuilt it with the truly best of the best, coast to coast, and created a 12 team league (no more than 12, as you don't want to "water it down." Unfortunately that means some current teams would end up getting left out. Nobody wants that. Taking the American, as currently configured, and adding a few western teams would not help that, as the league would be too bloated to be functionally serve it's designed purpose.

The AAC really only has 1 or 2 members that might not be deemed the best of the rest material a this moment in time. These members at least add a significant market to the footprint and have the potential to develop in the future---especially if media earnings grow significantly. Frankly, I think it's about scale. In order to be effective, the conference might need 18-20 members. That would allow 5-6 members west of the Rockies to be added---while still allowing a couple of additional schools east of the Rockies.

To reach that type of scale, the rules governing divisional FBS football play would probably have to be modified to allow pod play or to eliminate the required divisional round robin. In such an environment, the large scale G5 national model could flourish. Without a rule change, such a large model would require too many conference games and would allow for virtually no crossover play. The only option to avoid that fate would be the rotating pod system used in the 16 team WAC. The system was a disaster in the WAC because it split too many big rivalries and because everyone wanted to play BYU every year. For the AAC, 5 team pods would work fine and be able to protect the few necessary rivalries (there just are not that many AAC rivalries to protect). As long as the 4-5 western teams were together in one pod the old WAC rotating system would probably work.

(02-27-2014 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The AAC really only has 1 or 2 members that might not be deemed the best of the rest material a this moment in time. These members at least add a significant market to the footprint and have the potential to develop in the future---especially if media earnings grow significantly. Frankly, I think it's about scale. In order to be effective, the conference might need 18-20 members.

See, now this is a matter of opinion, but I think the exact opposite is true. I think it needs to be tight. 12 teams max (for football). I think even 14 is to much. Just a matter of preference, but I think that props it up some. In a given year 4-5 of the teams will be down (as happens with a 12 team conference), but then the "bad" teams still offer something. As such, if you have to limit it to 12 teams, for every team you add, you have to take one away. So if you end up adding 3-4 from out west, you have to take an equal number out of the out of the AAC which currently sits at 12. Hence why I said you would have to remove some teams.

Fundamentally you disagree and think it has to go big. In that case, you are right in terms of only 1-2 teams not fitting. But I think if you try to attack it from that perspective, it smaller is better.

(02-26-2014 12:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  Without more TV money there is zero reason to expand. The conference is already underpaid, getting more mouths to feed will only make the problem worse.

We know there are brands endorsed by the tv partners...

Air Force (national brand), Army (national brand, NY market, & own tv contract), Boise State (big name & tv bonus deal), and BYU (big name & own tv contract)

The television deal will receive a BOOST from ESPN/CBS with the addition of any of those programs - that boost will at least keep the payouts per member neutral, but I'd guess a slight gain - like the American will already see in 2018 when Navy's rights are rolled into the conference. Any addition needs to include one or more of those schools or it is NOT worth doing.

Keep an eye on Army -- they should be in discussions now over a television renewal contract with CBS. Announcements on their contracts are usually the spring before the final year of their current agreement -- which is between now and June/July. If there is any realignment in the making - it will be made between now and then!

(02-27-2014 12:15 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 12:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  Without more TV money there is zero reason to expand. The conference is already underpaid, getting more mouths to feed will only make the problem worse.

We know there are brands endorsed by the tv partners...

Air Force (national brand), Army (national brand, NY market, & own tv contract), Boise State (big name & tv bonus deal), and BYU (big name & own tv contract)

The television deal will receive a BOOST from ESPN/CBS with the addition of any of those programs - that boost will at least keep the payouts per member neutral, but I'd guess a slight gain - like the American will already see in 2018 when Navy's rights are rolled into the conference. Any addition needs to include one or more of those schools or it is NOT worth doing.

Keep an eye on Army -- they should be in discussions now over a television renewal contract with CBS. Announcements on their contracts are usually the spring before the final year of their current agreement -- which is between now and June/July. If there is any realignment in the making - it will be made between now and then!

IMO..

Navy was valuable on its own. Army and Air Force only really become valuable if all 3 are together.

BYU is valuable on its own, but doesn't make much sense geographically without other western additions.

I don't think Boise holds much value these days unless a western pod is created (which then there are plenty of other value options).

The BE added two schools on their own islands out west. That's not really a "national" conference IMO. If we added Fresno, UNLV, AF, CSU and New Mexico then it would've been a national conference.

(02-26-2014 07:32 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  IMO, it would make more sense for the MWC to just go ahead and make Hawaii a full time member again

They nor Hawaii want that because of the travel costs. Not like Hawaii is some Olympic sport powerhouse that adds value to the TV deal or earns major NCAA tourney credits to offset the costs of traveling teams to the islands. And for Hawaii's part, travel is a lot more manageable in the Big West, basically flying to either LA or SF for everything.

MWC isn't going to get Gonzaga out of the WCC -- there's nothing in it for Gonzaga. They do just fine in the WCC, and there's no reason for them to surrender being with a group of like-minded, basketball-first Catholic schools. None of the WCC schools are going to leave that conference for what the MWC is offering.

Now, Wichita State could happen, but that's just adding a team for short-term success. Not unlike what the Big East did with Butler, and if they stop being a quality team, then you've just got an outlier that's not adding much.

No, the solution for the MWC, if they really need to get to 12 for basketball (and I don't think the case has been made that they do) is Denver, Seattle U., or Utah Valley.

Im sorry mwc tex but the mwc is not on the AAC's level and objectively it seems that the national media is starting to notice. Unfortunaly you guys have underwhelmed people last fbball season and this bball season. I cqn understand you all want to think that but 1st impressions are so very important and barring a complete 180 by your fbball teams next season as compared to what is expected from the AAC you guys may be in our rearveiw mirrors in a couple of seasons. Really this is my honest opinion

(02-26-2014 04:18 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Who out there in the candidate pool will ADD VALUE to the AAC? Why tack on partials? Honestly, if hadn't taken on Navy as a football only member our expansion scenarios would be better overall.

you've lost your mind. Navy is probably the most valuable school in the AAC going forward. There's a lot more value out there than just a TV revenue bump.

(02-27-2014 12:15 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  We know there are brands endorsed by the tv partners...

Air Force (national brand), Army (national brand, NY market, & own tv contract), Boise State (big name & tv bonus deal), and BYU (big name & own tv contract)

Army was not a big draw for TV in CUSA. I don't know what they are getting paid now by CBS, but I'm betting it is not at least $2M. Army is not a draw in any way outside of football either. Same goes with Air Force.

Quote:The television deal will receive a BOOST from ESPN/CBS with the addition of any of those programs - that boost will at least keep the payouts per member neutral, but I'd guess a slight gain - like the American will already see in 2018 when Navy's rights are rolled into the conference. Any addition needs to include one or more of those schools or it is NOT worth doing.

Army, Air Force, and Navy are most valuable for their games against each other (and Notre Dame). Army playing UC, UCF, Memphis, or anyone else is not of any significant value. Same with Air Force.

Quote:Keep an eye on Army -- they should be in discussions now over a television renewal contract with CBS. Announcements on their contracts are usually the spring before the final year of their current agreement -- which is between now and June/July. If there is any realignment in the making - it will be made between now and then!

I don't see it. Army got demolished in CUSA the first go around, which is essentially the same conference as the AAC. I don't expect them to want to come in and have that experience again.

If the American does expand, I can't see them going west - just too much of a logistics headache.

So, what's left worth adding from the midwest and east? Do any of these teams add value to the conference:

Marshall? Rice? Bowling Green? Ball State? Northern Illinios?

They all had winning seasons last year, but why add them? Overall, they'd drag down the olympic sports, especiall basketball. So, let's just stay on our current plan through 2015 and wait and see if we can pick up any teams after the Big12 implodes.

(02-27-2014 12:15 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 12:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  Without more TV money there is zero reason to expand. The conference is already underpaid, getting more mouths to feed will only make the problem worse.

We know there are brands endorsed by the tv partners...

Air Force (national brand), Army (national brand, NY market, & own tv contract), Boise State (big name & tv bonus deal), and BYU (big name & own tv contract)

The television deal will receive a BOOST from ESPN/CBS with the addition of any of those programs - that boost will at least keep the payouts per member neutral, but I'd guess a slight gain - like the American will already see in 2018 when Navy's rights are rolled into the conference. Any addition needs to include one or more of those schools or it is NOT worth doing.

Keep an eye on Army -- they should be in discussions now over a television renewal contract with CBS. Announcements on their contracts are usually the spring before the final year of their current agreement -- which is between now and June/July. If there is any realignment in the making - it will be made between now and then!

Are you sure about the contract. I was under the impression that their contract ran concurrent with the Navy contract (Navy's expires in 2018). If your right, that's an interesting tidbit I was unaware of.

(02-27-2014 01:49 PM)mlb Wrote:  Army was not a big draw for TV in CUSA. I don't know what they are getting paid now by CBS, but I'm betting it is not at least $2M. Army is not a draw in any way outside of football either. Same goes with Air Force.

They make over $7 million per year with CBS.

(02-26-2014 10:11 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  Cut the head of the MWC.

Not happening.

(02-27-2014 04:12 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 10:11 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  Cut the head of the MWC.

Not happening.

Why not?

Jesus this stuff again.

There is no pressing need for the MWC to expand any further. Hawaii is saving a ton of money on travel costs by being in what is basically a California bus league for Olympic sports. It may not want to leave. I doubt any non football school outside of the footprint would make economical sense for the school or conference. Small, private Gonzaga does not fit with large, public schools.

The BE/AAC tried the Western expansion approach once. It couldn't pull it off when it was a better conference than it is now. It would have only worked had BYU said yes. That ship has sailed. Let it go.

There are no Eastern schools part that would bring enough to the table to warrant expansion. Maybe one day UMass, Charlotte, GaSt or somebody will be worth expanding for, but non is right now.

(02-26-2014 01:15 PM)Tigersmoke Wrote:  The only additions we should make now should be houston going after witchita's coach with a vengence and a fistfull of money and ucf or usf doing the same for skaka smart. Think like a p5 and you cant go wrong. They rarely add lower teams when they can take your coaches and not splint any more conference dollars.

Don't believe UH is looking for a new coach. Even if they were, they'd have no chance of getting Gregg Marshall. Not enough money. Not enough amenities. Not enough fan interest. Not enough of anything. The only upside to UH is the AAC. Everything else would be a huge step down from Wichita State University.