(02-08-2020 08:24 AM)TheBigEastSucks Wrote:  

(02-08-2020 05:25 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 02:02 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 09:32 AM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 08:49 AM)First Mate Wrote:  Heck no. Do you want to add FIU? Or FAU?

The AAC needs to stay at 11 rather than add a 12 just for the sake of doing it.

We need to keep our CCG, though. After this waiver ends, it goes away unless we add someone or deal with uneven divisions at least.

Either way, we cannot lose the CCG. Too valuable.

What makes the CCG so valuable?

Is it worth enough that adding another mouth to feed and spilting 12 ways instead of 11 makes sense?

I would go with this than adding APP St

Hell no, can you stop using drugs?

I really need to start AA.

(02-10-2020 10:48 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:54 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:45 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:31 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:27 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Most, if not all AAC schools would prefer to maintain the 12 school per sport membership. They'd have already replaced UConn if BYU had been interested.

Perhaps the most effective way to go about adding a new FB & BB school would be to present a list of potential schools to ESPN and seek their assistance as a kind of midwife or matchmaker. ESPN might be more persuasive than the conference can be in attracting the best available FB school.

ESPN might also be able to make the most compelling case to a particular school that they will be likely to get more than average coverage in the AAC. Obviously, Boise would be guaranteed to have many of their games televised. As to the others, ESPN is in the best position to know which schools would get the most coverage. They could identify those schools and get in direct contact as the matchmaker.

Lol

One thing's fairly certain - if ESPN were to play the matchmaker, Georgia State probably wouldn't be on their short list.

Air Force and SDSU would probably be at the top of their list; AF for national audience and SDSU for the southern California viewership.

In a one team scenario, If not BYU or BSU, nobody from the west is added, even with ESPiN's help.

One could make the case that ESPN would make about the same amount by broadcasting AF or SDSU, compared to Boise & BYU.

The viewership numbers per game aren't that different. The only difference is that Boise and BYU had a few more televised games.

Another factor is that Americans often like to root for the underdog or the new kid on the block. BYU and BSU have had some controversies, some negative PR, or are kind of same old same old already. Air Force has great PR and has never been dominant. SDSU is still like a new kid on the block.

After post 103, I am not sure I deserve to post here.

I still feel that if you add AF, two other west schools need to be added to help in travel. BYU and BSU would be great but that seems implausible without ESPiN's help.

Again, I go back to recruiting. GSU spent the money to improve the facilities and with limited schools located in Georgia ( UCF is mixed in with six other schools, if you include F_U,). I remember the days of the MAC and CUSA for UCF and it isn't that much different. It is a risk, but a risk that is better than adding one west school not BYU or BSU.

(02-10-2020 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:53 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 03:39 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  That what puzzles me
Pitt was the #2 seed in ACC
In divisionless conf, Pitt still play in CCG

Why does everybody think Conn would never improve
At 1 time Conn won BCS conf

Shrug. A 4 loss UConn "won" a BCS conference by having the right tie breakers to come out ahead in a 3-way tie with 2 other 4 loss teams. They managed to do that....once. Thats not all that impressive and is pretty much the ceiling for UConn football. I think UConn doesnt have to suck every year---but the chances of them being a consistent winner are pretty low. I have my doubts they can even be consistently mediocre.

Said about Houston 10 years ago...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

When you say stupid stuff you only undermine your own credibility. Houston has a long history of football success. Houston's program has been pretty consistently good for the last 20 years or so. We definitely had a bad decade in the 90's---but the program was generally quite good both before and after that aberration. Thats a very different profile from being a relatively recent arrival on the FBS scene with little success and no real track record of football consistency. Put another way---a five loss season is not Houston's high water mark.

Sure sure...you dropped a cherry while picking...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(02-11-2020 05:11 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 10:48 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:54 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:45 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:31 AM)panama Wrote:  Lol

One thing's fairly certain - if ESPN were to play the matchmaker, Georgia State probably wouldn't be on their short list.

Air Force and SDSU would probably be at the top of their list; AF for national audience and SDSU for the southern California viewership.

In a one team scenario, If not BYU or BSU, nobody from the west is added, even with ESPiN's help.

One could make the case that ESPN would make about the same amount by broadcasting AF or SDSU, compared to Boise & BYU.

The viewership numbers per game aren't that different. The only difference is that Boise and BYU had a few more televised games.

Another factor is that Americans often like to root for the underdog or the new kid on the block. BYU and BSU have had some controversies, some negative PR, or are kind of same old same old already. Air Force has great PR and has never been dominant. SDSU is still like a new kid on the block.

After post 103, I am not sure I deserve to post here.

I still feel that if you add AF, two other west schools need to be added to help in travel. BYU and BSU would be great but that seems implausible without ESPiN's help.

Again, I go back to recruiting. GSU spent the money to improve the facilities and with limited schools located in Georgia ( UCF is mixed in with six other schools, if you include F_U,). I remember the days of the MAC and CUSA for UCF and it isn't that much different. It is a risk, but a risk that is better than adding one west school not BYU or BSU.

GSU didn't spend or invest to improve the facilities. The city of Atlanta was desperate to find an alternate use for Turner Field, they had fed funds available & they had a developer in hand wanting to develop the surrounding area. GSU was just the recipient & logical beneficiary of a "public" project making relatively little investment themselves. GA St has a history of this approach & why they remain an enigma with otherwise seemingly great theoretical potentially. Saying it another way, they haven't earned or paid their dues - they haven't developed a following or a winning tradition.

(02-11-2020 07:18 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:53 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 03:39 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  That what puzzles me
Pitt was the #2 seed in ACC
In divisionless conf, Pitt still play in CCG

Why does everybody think Conn would never improve
At 1 time Conn won BCS conf

Shrug. A 4 loss UConn "won" a BCS conference by having the right tie breakers to come out ahead in a 3-way tie with 2 other 4 loss teams. They managed to do that....once. Thats not all that impressive and is pretty much the ceiling for UConn football. I think UConn doesnt have to suck every year---but the chances of them being a consistent winner are pretty low. I have my doubts they can even be consistently mediocre.

Said about Houston 10 years ago...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

When you say stupid stuff you only undermine your own credibility. Houston has a long history of football success. Houston's program has been pretty consistently good for the last 20 years or so. We definitely had a bad decade in the 90's---but the program was generally quite good both before and after that aberration. Thats a very different profile from being a relatively recent arrival on the FBS scene with little success and no real track record of football consistency. Put another way---a five loss season is not Houston's high water mark.

Sure sure...you dropped a cherry while picking...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Apparently you don’t know what that phrase means. Looking at the entire body of work is the exact opposite of cherry picking.

(02-11-2020 05:11 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 10:48 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:54 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:45 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:31 AM)panama Wrote:  Lol

One thing's fairly certain - if ESPN were to play the matchmaker, Georgia State probably wouldn't be on their short list.

Air Force and SDSU would probably be at the top of their list; AF for national audience and SDSU for the southern California viewership.

In a one team scenario, If not BYU or BSU, nobody from the west is added, even with ESPiN's help.

One could make the case that ESPN would make about the same amount by broadcasting AF or SDSU, compared to Boise & BYU.

The viewership numbers per game aren't that different. The only difference is that Boise and BYU had a few more televised games.

Another factor is that Americans often like to root for the underdog or the new kid on the block. BYU and BSU have had some controversies, some negative PR, or are kind of same old same old already. Air Force has great PR and has never been dominant. SDSU is still like a new kid on the block.

After post 103, I am not sure I deserve to post here.

I still feel that if you add AF, two other west schools need to be added to help in travel. BYU and BSU would be great but that seems implausible without ESPiN's help.

Again, I go back to recruiting. GSU spent the money to improve the facilities and with limited schools located in Georgia ( UCF is mixed in with six other schools, if you include F_U,). I remember the days of the MAC and CUSA for UCF and it isn't that much different. It is a risk, but a risk that is better than adding one west school not BYU or BSU.

Why?

Colorado Springs isn't that far, why would we add on more travel to Provo and Boise?

Maybe you need to take a break from realignment talk

(02-11-2020 10:22 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 05:11 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 10:48 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:54 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 12:45 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  One thing's fairly certain - if ESPN were to play the matchmaker, Georgia State probably wouldn't be on their short list.

Air Force and SDSU would probably be at the top of their list; AF for national audience and SDSU for the southern California viewership.

In a one team scenario, If not BYU or BSU, nobody from the west is added, even with ESPiN's help.

One could make the case that ESPN would make about the same amount by broadcasting AF or SDSU, compared to Boise & BYU.

The viewership numbers per game aren't that different. The only difference is that Boise and BYU had a few more televised games.

Another factor is that Americans often like to root for the underdog or the new kid on the block. BYU and BSU have had some controversies, some negative PR, or are kind of same old same old already. Air Force has great PR and has never been dominant. SDSU is still like a new kid on the block.

After post 103, I am not sure I deserve to post here.

I still feel that if you add AF, two other west schools need to be added to help in travel. BYU and BSU would be great but that seems implausible without ESPiN's help.

Again, I go back to recruiting. GSU spent the money to improve the facilities and with limited schools located in Georgia ( UCF is mixed in with six other schools, if you include F_U,). I remember the days of the MAC and CUSA for UCF and it isn't that much different. It is a risk, but a risk that is better than adding one west school not BYU or BSU.

GSU didn't spend or invest to improve the facilities. The city of Atlanta was desperate to find an alternate use for Turner Field, they had fed funds available & they had a developer in hand wanting to develop the surrounding area. GSU was just the recipient & logical beneficiary of a "public" project making relatively little investment themselves. GA St has a history of this approach & why they remain an enigma with otherwise seemingly great theoretical potentially. Saying it another way, they haven't earned or paid their dues - they haven't developed a following or a winning tradition.

Ok, not sure why we are constantly in your mouth

....but calling bs.

GSU has been buying property downtown since the second WW which is why we own $7B in downtown real estate. As companies moved north in the city out of downtown we have purchased and renovated their properties. This is why GSU was the FIRST phone call made even as the Braves were on the stage at the podium making their announcement in 2013. Yes we got a sweetheart deal. We bought a stadium and 70 acres of downtown for $30M. We have since invested over $75M in renovations just to stadium including building a new east side stands and regrading and reconfiguring the field for football to say nothing of building a Football Operations Center in the building as well as office for athletics, an Under Armor store and a recruiting lounge.

I don't know what your issue is with GSU but get over it dude.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(02-11-2020 10:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 07:18 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 07:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:53 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Shrug. A 4 loss UConn "won" a BCS conference by having the right tie breakers to come out ahead in a 3-way tie with 2 other 4 loss teams. They managed to do that....once. Thats not all that impressive and is pretty much the ceiling for UConn football. I think UConn doesnt have to suck every year---but the chances of them being a consistent winner are pretty low. I have my doubts they can even be consistently mediocre.

Said about Houston 10 years ago...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

When you say stupid stuff you only undermine your own credibility. Houston has a long history of football success. Houston's program has been pretty consistently good for the last 20 years or so. We definitely had a bad decade in the 90's---but the program was generally quite good both before and after that aberration. Thats a very different profile from being a relatively recent arrival on the FBS scene with little success and no real track record of football consistency. Put another way---a five loss season is not Houston's high water mark.

Sure sure...you dropped a cherry while picking...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Apparently you don’t know what that phrase means. Looking at the entire body of work is the exact opposite of cherry picking.

Between 1980 and 2005 you appeared in 7 bowls with one win.

So you have had your ups and many many downs.

I just hate this pick on UConn attitude as if they owed anyone anything. They made the decision that was best for their program even if others do not want to understand.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(02-09-2020 12:51 PM)ah59396 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 04:38 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:39 PM)App10 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 12:53 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 12:25 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  If UAB, UNCC, GSU or ODU would have the same success as App on the football field one would be invited tomorrow.

App doesn't particularly fit, institutionally, with the AAC. I understand why most wouldn't want to invite the school. No hard feelings there. App isn't in a major city. App has only been FBS for 5 full years. App has always been a blue collar school that focuses on Teachers, Nurses, Renewable Energies and Accounting. No engineering school, no medical school, no law school. We are who we are and have a nice OOC schedule full of regional AAC, ACC and CUSA opponents. That's fine.

This guy gets it. App State is fine with a nice up and coming football program. They are not of like most of AAC's institutions.

The Big East didn't invite UC for its football program. The research, academic plan, basketball, the market and the ability to grow their athletics.

The AAC is just not strong enough yet to bring in a program that can not compete right away (next few years) and stay competitive. P5 can grow their teams. When you are G5 you are a lot of time judged by your best member and your worst members. P5's are just judged on their best (see ACC).

Again, not trying to get in the typical message board argument - just replying to your comments. What makes you think Apps football program couldn’t come in an compete right away? And I’m a little confused by the “AAC is just not strong enough yet” comment, it’s unquestionably the best G5 football conference and no matter if BYU, Army, or Boise was added wouldn’t add *that* much to the credibility of the conference. It’s pretty clear the college football media has plenty of respect for what the AAC is currently, not sure how big of a bump up one school is going to give the conference regardless of what other G5 school is added.

While App State has been doing well it's hard to tell if its going to be sustainable. App State is new to the FBS as most teams they play in the Sunbelt are. So while App has proven themselves to be the best of that group so far it's difficult to tell if it's because they're good or their competition is bad or somewhere in the middle especially with so many members that have recently jumped up from the FCS.

Sunbelt Football Members - Year they joined the FBS
Appalachian State - 2014
Arkansas State - 1992
Coastal Carolina - 2016
Georgia Southern - 2014
Georgia State - 2013
Louisiana - 1974
Louisiana-Monroe - 1994
South Alabama - 2012
Texas State - 2012
Troy - 2002

So long story short, it's to early. But the cream always rises to the top, App St and a few others in the Sunbelt have the pieces to build something if they dedicate themselves to building their programs.

Hard facts right here.

I’d like to see us sustain FBS success for a solid decade before moving again. While I don’t think we are a flash in the pan like NIU, I understand why we would be perceived that way. It’s just too soon.

The Sunbelt is the best spot for us for now. It’s an easy place to win and made our transition seamless. I’d be content adding AAC OOC games for the time being.

On the surface, sure, it may be hard facts. But when you dig deeper we have a consistent 35 years of above average results. Yes we were at a lower level, but our resources were also that of the lower level. We are always successful relative to our resources. While i do get a little tired of the constant drum beat of the whole “culture” thing from our fan base, ii do think there is merit to idea that over said 35 years something special
Has been established. Especially when we continue to have coaches on staff who were brought up in that culture. We have the infrastructure on the mountain to compete right away, and with the relatively massive influx of cash the program would receive from AAC membership i don’t find it unrealistic we would be competing for championships fairly quickly. And speaking of said massive influx of cash, I’m not sure how you can say the Sunbelt is the best spot for us. It would be a derelict of duty if Gillin isn’t doing everything he can to get us in the AAC, i think football-only is the best option.

@Brett_McMurphy
·
7h
The LA Bowl officially announced today. It’s one of 3 new bowls in 2020 & will pit 1st selection from Mountain West vs. 5th from Pac-12. Game will be played at SoFi Stadium