(10-09-2018 08:51 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Actually, Boise State is worth it if they play ball and take an even share. They'd slot in the top half of the league on year one. They also fit the mentality of several member schools.

I agree. Don't know why some folks just don't want to acknowledge this. You take Boise, SDSU, and Fresno and you have made the MWC into CUSA. But yes, Boise would have to agree to play as an equal member, no special deals...

(10-09-2018 08:56 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 08:51 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Actually, Boise State is worth it if they play ball and take an even share. They'd slot in the top half of the league on year one. They also fit the mentality of several member schools.

I agree. Don't know why some folks just don't want to acknowledge this. You take Boise, SDSU, and Fresno and you have made the MWC into CUSA. But yes, Boise would have to agree to play as an equal member, no special deals...

Boise can't even win it's weak division half the time in the Mountain west, how the hell are they going to be a top half team in a much harder AAC? I'm not even sure they could make it in the top half or the west division. They certainly wouldn't be top half in the east division this year.

We don't need to make the MW the new CUSA it's already well on it's way to being the new WAC.

All the AAC has to do is keep grinding. The separation is already pretty clear and almost complete. Tulsa pulling it's head out would help cement it. UConn is on their way to doing their part and taking the bumps for playing young. Tulane is working to respectability and I can't imagine ECU not figuring it out to be at least a consitant bowl team.

Boise and San Diego add long trips and mouths to feed, of course the east teams are all for it. They add navy to their side (even though navy doesn't want to be in the east) and the western teams eat the long trips, elevation and 12 midnight start times.

Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

San Diego didn't turn down anything they got hung out to dry. They are currently affiliated members.

Boise has the mwc over the barrel for pertuity, they aren't giving up that sweet deal. I expect you will see Fresno and SDSU looking for a similar deal as Hawaii makes more money than they do off media rights.

(10-09-2018 08:45 PM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 07:49 PM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 11:13 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  Ah yes, the hugely desired "Quality Loss"

I think they'll lose to SDSU too.

Hmmm..

Had to prove the first quality loss wasn't a fluke.

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

Wrong and wrong. Boise tried to play the AAC against the mwc for an unfair share of the revenue and was told to kick rocks, and SDSU didn't want to leave but basically had no choice after losing Boise as a travel partner and would have ended up being stranded on a far away island in an eastward pointing conference. However I'd love to get SDSU back under the right circumstances.

(10-09-2018 09:27 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

San Diego didn't turn down anything they got hung out to dry. They are currently affiliated members.

Boise has the mwc over the barrel for pertuity, they aren't giving up that sweet deal. I expect you will see Fresno and SDSU looking for a similar deal as Hawaii makes more money than they do off media rights.

Not even if the AAC gets over $10 million per team deal?

IF Boise had a rich history say like Texas, Alabama, USC (Trojans), Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Florida, etc. I will most definitely would want them in this league, heck yes... But they don't.

(10-09-2018 09:34 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:27 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

San Diego didn't turn down anything they got hung out to dry. They are currently affiliated members.

Boise has the mwc over the barrel for pertuity, they aren't giving up that sweet deal. I expect you will see Fresno and SDSU looking for a similar deal as Hawaii makes more money than they do off media rights.

Not even if the AAC gets over $10 million per team deal?

No, they don't want the competition. They are pulling a Texas. SDSU can't go east with out them or BYU who also doesn't want to play. Every deal the mwc signs will give them a bigger chunk of it.

Never mind that most of the AAC and especially Navy would tell them to go kick rocks. I wouldn't trade Navy for them. Hell I wouldn't trade Wichita for them, I don't even like Wichita and they don't play football.

(10-09-2018 09:48 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:34 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:27 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

San Diego didn't turn down anything they got hung out to dry. They are currently affiliated members.

Boise has the mwc over the barrel for pertuity, they aren't giving up that sweet deal. I expect you will see Fresno and SDSU looking for a similar deal as Hawaii makes more money than they do off media rights.

Not even if the AAC gets over $10 million per team deal?

No, they don't want the competition. They are pulling a Texas. SDSU can't go east with out them or BYU who also doesn't want to play. Every deal the mwc signs will give them a bigger chunk of it.

Never mind that most of the AAC and especially Navy would tell them to go kick rocks. I wouldn't trade Navy for them. Hell I wouldn't trade Wichita for them, I don't even like Wichita and they don't play football.

I don't buy that. They know they aren't Texas. They'll call us if the AAC gets the right deal.

The only thing that could stop the deal (which is mutually excellent) would be if Navy tried to block.

(10-09-2018 09:51 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:48 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:34 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:27 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

San Diego didn't turn down anything they got hung out to dry. They are currently affiliated members.

Boise has the mwc over the barrel for pertuity, they aren't giving up that sweet deal. I expect you will see Fresno and SDSU looking for a similar deal as Hawaii makes more money than they do off media rights.

Not even if the AAC gets over $10 million per team deal?

No, they don't want the competition. They are pulling a Texas. SDSU can't go east with out them or BYU who also doesn't want to play. Every deal the mwc signs will give them a bigger chunk of it.

Never mind that most of the AAC and especially Navy would tell them to go kick rocks. I wouldn't trade Navy for them. Hell I wouldn't trade Wichita for them, I don't even like Wichita and they don't play football.

I don't buy that. They know they aren't Texas. They'll call us if the AAC gets the right deal.

The only thing that could stop the deal (which is mutually excellent) would be if Navy tried to block.

If we get the right deal, why would we take the call? Boise has one it's division twice. One more time than Wyoming and Air Force and barring a miracle it will be five years since they went to a NY6. By the way Western Michigan would be closer and has only one less division title and one less conference title and the same number of NY6 appearences.. The Boise St team you remember is in Washington now.

I can tell you Tulsa would also be a no. My guess would be SMU would be too. We've been stuck out west before. I would be surprised if Tulane would be for it. All four would have issues with BSU academics. I'm not sure Houston would care one way or the other. Memphis might be ok with it.

It's beyond a non-starter for Boise (who makes all the decisions for the MWC) and a good portion of the AAC.

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

I think SDSU was all for it, but when Boise pulled out they didn't want to be left isolated with no other teams in their region. They would've been a great addition for both major sports, but it's just not sustainable to have a league that far flung. IF a full western division had been possible with BYU, Boise, SDSU, AF, CSU, Wyoming, and Fresno, then maybe, but that division already exists. It's called the MWC. There is just no real benefit to such being part of the AAC.

(09-13-2018 12:39 AM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 11:40 PM)willhclark Wrote:  I keep hearing the radio/tv analysts comparing Boise favorably to UCF while ignoring rest of G5. They keep discounting UCF as if the Knights never played anyone...and ignore the rest of the G5 saying how Boise has proven they can win vs the P5 when no one else has. Don't they know UCF won the Fiesta in 13 and Peach in 17??? The Boise wins over OU in the Fiesta was back in 2006 and they beat TCU in 2009 and Arizona in 2014. UCF has done more with Blue Blood wins than Boise recently and so has Houston. All the Big Boise wins were under Chris Peterson (the biggest in 8 years ago) and Peterson is not the coach anymore yet the media acts like Boise is just so good.

You don’t think the Fiesta bowl is a big win? Harsin won that. How does that stack up to Houston and UCFs head coaching big wins?

That Arizona team should not have been in that game. Y'all were decent that year, but it's not like playing Auburn or Florida State. Sorry, it just wasn't.

(10-10-2018 08:36 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

I think SDSU was all for it, but when Boise pulled out they didn't want to be left isolated with no other teams in their region. They would've been a great addition for both major sports, but it's just not sustainable to have a league that far flung. IF a full western division had been possible with BYU, Boise, SDSU, AF, CSU, Wyoming, and Fresno, then maybe, but that division already exists. It's called the MWC. There is just no real benefit to such being part of the AAC.

I would argue there is more value in the AAC adding Boise St and SDSU to the conference than the entire MWC contract.

The American would be able to sell a late night game in football each week that would feature either program. (Potential for AAC double headers in weeknight basketball). You now have the Boise brand playing better competition every week and the ability to hand pick 2 EST teams for them to play each year (similar to the basketball scheduling). Adding the best market the MWC has in San Diego.

The entire MWC is worth $15 million per year. I could see adding these 2 brands to the AAC being worth that. I think the key comes down to American using the flexible scheduling to ensure that each year it would pair up SDSU/Boise/Houston to UCF/USF/UC/Memphis for marque games throughout the season. The ability to land these higher end games into more flexible time slots further adds to the value.

(10-10-2018 11:00 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 08:36 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

I think SDSU was all for it, but when Boise pulled out they didn't want to be left isolated with no other teams in their region. They would've been a great addition for both major sports, but it's just not sustainable to have a league that far flung. IF a full western division had been possible with BYU, Boise, SDSU, AF, CSU, Wyoming, and Fresno, then maybe, but that division already exists. It's called the MWC. There is just no real benefit to such being part of the AAC.

I would argue there is more value in the AAC adding Boise St and SDSU to the conference than the entire MWC contract.

The American would be able to sell a late night game in football each week that would feature either program. (Potential for AAC double headers in weeknight basketball). You now have the Boise brand playing better competition every week and the ability to hand pick 2 EST teams for them to play each year (similar to the basketball scheduling). Adding the best market the MWC has in San Diego.

The entire MWC is worth $15 million per year. I could see adding these 2 brands to the AAC being worth that. I think the key comes down to American using the flexible scheduling to ensure that each year it would pair up SDSU/Boise/Houston to UCF/USF/UC/Memphis for marque games throughout the season. The ability to land these higher end games into more flexible time slots further adds to the value.

Boise burned this bridge. I would be for adding 4 teams that aren't Boise, effectively neutering the MWC (and Boise) from competing for the NY6 bowl money.

SDSU,AF,CSU,UNLV.

(10-10-2018 11:00 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 08:36 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

I think SDSU was all for it, but when Boise pulled out they didn't want to be left isolated with no other teams in their region. They would've been a great addition for both major sports, but it's just not sustainable to have a league that far flung. IF a full western division had been possible with BYU, Boise, SDSU, AF, CSU, Wyoming, and Fresno, then maybe, but that division already exists. It's called the MWC. There is just no real benefit to such being part of the AAC.

I would argue there is more value in the AAC adding Boise St and SDSU to the conference than the entire MWC contract.

The American would be able to sell a late night game in football each week that would feature either program. (Potential for AAC double headers in weeknight basketball). You now have the Boise brand playing better competition every week and the ability to hand pick 2 EST teams for them to play each year (similar to the basketball scheduling). Adding the best market the MWC has in San Diego.

The entire MWC is worth $15 million per year. I could see adding these 2 brands to the AAC being worth that. I think the key comes down to American using the flexible scheduling to ensure that each year it would pair up SDSU/Boise/Houston to UCF/USF/UC/Memphis for marque games throughout the season. The ability to land these higher end games into more flexible time slots further adds to the value.

I dont agree with the bolded statement about their added value to a media rights deal. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that is accurate.
The break even point for media rights alone would then be $90 million per year for the current AAC, $7.5 million per team. Offset the per team reduction of CFP money - we're already at the top of the food chain for non contract bowl conferences - and the break even point moves down to $7.2 million per team.
So if you think the present lineup is worth $6 million per team or less AND those two are worth $15 million, then it would be additive. But here's the thing - those two statements are contradictory: if our proven ratings package is worth that little, then those two bring far less than your posited figure to the table.

All that is before adding in travel costs and other pain in the behind factors.

(10-10-2018 08:01 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 11:00 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 08:36 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(10-09-2018 09:21 PM)Knight_of_Parrish Wrote:  Boise and SDSU turned down the AAC ~6 years ago, I doubt they have changed their thinking since.

I think SDSU was all for it, but when Boise pulled out they didn't want to be left isolated with no other teams in their region. They would've been a great addition for both major sports, but it's just not sustainable to have a league that far flung. IF a full western division had been possible with BYU, Boise, SDSU, AF, CSU, Wyoming, and Fresno, then maybe, but that division already exists. It's called the MWC. There is just no real benefit to such being part of the AAC.

I would argue there is more value in the AAC adding Boise St and SDSU to the conference than the entire MWC contract.

The American would be able to sell a late night game in football each week that would feature either program. (Potential for AAC double headers in weeknight basketball). You now have the Boise brand playing better competition every week and the ability to hand pick 2 EST teams for them to play each year (similar to the basketball scheduling). Adding the best market the MWC has in San Diego.

The entire MWC is worth $15 million per year. I could see adding these 2 brands to the AAC being worth that. I think the key comes down to American using the flexible scheduling to ensure that each year it would pair up SDSU/Boise/Houston to UCF/USF/UC/Memphis for marque games throughout the season. The ability to land these higher end games into more flexible time slots further adds to the value.

I dont agree with the bolded statement about their added value to a media rights deal. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that is accurate.
The break even point for media rights alone would then be $90 million per year for the current AAC, $7.5 million per team. Offset the per team reduction of CFP money - we're already at the top of the food chain for non contract bowl conferences - and the break even point moves down to $7.2 million per team.
So if you think the present lineup is worth $6 million per team or less AND those two are worth $15 million, then it would be additive. But here's the thing - those two statements are contradictory: if our proven ratings package is worth that little, then those two bring far less than your posited figure to the table.

All that is before adding in travel costs and other pain in the behind factors.

I wasn't trying to get too far into the weeds on it. We are just people posting on an internet forum and not experts.

I was trying to point out that raiding the top 2 of the MWC pretty much strips the entire value from the conference and could be leveraged by the AAC. Also adding 2 better programs to our conference we gain a significant amount of good matchups that networks want throughout the year (3 division games and potentially 4 additional cross division games).

At the end of the day the American will need to run the numbers and decide what works best for them. I just think that we shouldn't easily dismiss the concept of them adding these 2 teams by saying they are just additional mouths to feed. They both add some nice assets to the conference, and would likely have considerable value in a TV deal.

I would love to see the conference go big with a 16/18 that really does a best of the rest power 6 league.

West: BOISE STATE, SDSU, UNLV, Memphis, Tulsa, Tulane, Houston, SMU
East: ARMY (football only), Navy (football only), UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, East Carolina, UCF, USF

Here is where the plan really takes off. The conferences BYU (all sports, 6 game football schedule), Gonzaga, and St. Mary's.

Basketball/Olympics looks like this

West: BYU, Gonzaga, St. Mary's, UNLV, Boise State, SDSU
East: Cincinnati, UConn, Temple, ECU, USF, UCF
Central: Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulsa, Tulane, Wichita State

Basketball doesn't need divisions but this setup provides the geographic balance needed in a nationwide conference.

"I'm not sure Houston would care one way or the other."

Houston cares. It may be the most ranking obsessed university in the country. It has been publishing an annual report card on its metrics for years and yesterday announced a new program to assess its status with measurements used by the AAU.

Tulsa is not a great academic university. It limits what it does much more than public universities and has 6 grad programs that do so poorly they are reported as RNP, Rank Not Published. See:
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-sch...l-rankings


Report Cards
============
http://www.uhsystem.edu/chancellor/plann...20Card.pdf

http://www.uhsystem.edu/uh-system/planni...reports/UH

Talk to the MWC schools in 2025 if the B-12 blows up.

If the top 4-6 B-12 schools leave to form four P4 conferences the remaining 6-8 schools take the best of the AAC schools and BYU to get back to 12 or 14 universities and hope to keep up with the P4 conferences. The remaining AAC schools backfill with MWC and CUSA schools to stay alive.

If the B-12 doesn't blow up and remains intact, the AAC may only lose one to 3 schools if that conference decides to expand. If Texas, Oklahoma, and ESPN work out a deal for the Longhorn / Sooner network the B-12 stays at 10. The rest of the conference says "please may I have another", and counts their blessings because Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay and keep the conference together.