But with UTSA doing pretty good for such a young program, are they a legitimate AAC potential expansion target with a second Texas school as a partner?

Don't feed the troll guys.

Only if a few AAC schools leave first. UTSA has much more upside as a program than say Marshall.

Better than UMASS...

(08-31-2014 10:31 PM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  Better than UMASS...

I do agree with the premise that UCONN needs a strong partner school that than fans can identify with to remain at the top of their game in this new conference, but I think UMASS is too much of a downgrade for the rest of the conference as a whole.

TBH for a long time I have really liked the idea of the AAC being a Texas centric conference like the pac-12 is Cali centric.

ONLY after BYU, air force, army. None others need apply till after those options are exhausted.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

If you want a decent football program, sure.

If you want a credible academic institution, RUN.

(08-31-2014 10:34 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  ONLY after BYU, air force, army. None others need apply till after those options are exhausted.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

of those three, the AAC only has a shot at Army.

BYU is too busy trying to pretend that being an independent is as good as Pac-12 membership. Air Force is a service academy that acts like your traditional frontier school and won't break with CSU/Wyoming for the AAC.

(08-31-2014 10:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  If you want a decent football program, sure.

If you want a credible academic institution, RUN.

AAC has some top end academic quality, but how does the bottom stack up?

(08-31-2014 10:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  If you want a decent football program, sure.

If you want a credible academic institution, RUN.

AAC has some top end academic quality, but how does the bottom stack up?

Pretty well, all except Memphis are ranked USNWR tier 1. All are major research institutions. All have >$400 mil endowments, other than UCF (relatively young school), Temple, ECU, and Memphis. 5 are >$1 bil.

UTSA would be the worst ranked school by far, with the smallest endowment (in 2012, it was <$100 mil). Worst graduation rates (granted, UH isn't great in this department either, but we're still way ahead of UTSA), worst grad schools, worst admission standards. All by a wide margin.

There isn't an incentive for the AAC to expand unless it is stipulated to increase the TV contract with ESPN. In fact, if we knew the deal was going to suck so bad, adding Tulsa and/or Tulane shouldn't have happened...

(08-31-2014 10:30 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  Don't feed the troll guys.

Too rich coming from coug king! Go back in your hole

(08-31-2014 10:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  If you want a decent football program, sure.

If you want a credible academic institution, RUN.

AAC has some top end academic quality, but how does the bottom stack up?

Pretty well, all except Memphis are ranked USNWR tier 1. All are major research institutions. All have >$400 mil endowments, other than UCF (relatively young school) and Memphis, with some over $1 bil.

UTSA would be the worst ranked school by far, with the smallest endowment (in 2012, it was <$100 mil). Worst graduation rates (granted, UH isn't great in this department either, but we're still way ahead of UTSA), worst grad schools, worst admission standards. All by a wide margin.

what are the actual rankings?

Generally speaking I know 160 and over is really pushing it for P5/top of the G5 schools and the AAC has a couple that exceed that IIRC

(08-31-2014 10:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  If you want a decent football program, sure.

If you want a credible academic institution, RUN.

AAC has some top end academic quality, but how does the bottom stack up?

Pretty well, all except Memphis are ranked USNWR tier 1. All are major research institutions. All have >$400 mil endowments, other than UCF (relatively young school) and Memphis, with some over $1 bil.

UTSA would be the worst ranked school by far, with the smallest endowment (in 2012, it was <$100 mil). Worst graduation rates (granted, UH isn't great in this department either, but we're still way ahead of UTSA), worst grad schools, worst admission standards. All by a wide margin.

what are the actual rankings?

Generally speaking I know 160 and over is really pushing it for P5/top of the G5 schools and the AAC has a couple that exceed that IIRC

If they all (except Memphis) meet it, regardless if some fall between 160-200 (or however far it goes before cutting off), and UTSA is no where even in the ball park, does it really matter?

(08-31-2014 11:00 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  If you want a decent football program, sure.

If you want a credible academic institution, RUN.

AAC has some top end academic quality, but how does the bottom stack up?

Pretty well, all except Memphis are ranked USNWR tier 1. All are major research institutions. All have >$400 mil endowments, other than UCF (relatively young school) and Memphis, with some over $1 bil.

UTSA would be the worst ranked school by far, with the smallest endowment (in 2012, it was <$100 mil). Worst graduation rates (granted, UH isn't great in this department either, but we're still way ahead of UTSA), worst grad schools, worst admission standards. All by a wide margin.

what are the actual rankings?

Generally speaking I know 160 and over is really pushing it for P5/top of the G5 schools and the AAC has a couple that exceed that IIRC

If they all (except Memphis) meet it, regardless if some fall between 160-200 (or however far it goes before cutting off), and UTSA is no where even in the ball park, does it really matter?

good point about UTSA. I think endowments play a bigger role than USN rankings. UTSA has a lot of work to do. but their FB program will help improve that.

I'm sure their football program is doing wonders for school spirit and whatnot, but they have a big problem if they ever want to drastically improve academics in that they are essentially just a UT feeder school. Google the CAP program.

Then again, Boise pretty much smears any academic argument. I guess the fast track for UTSA would be -- become the next Boise.

(08-31-2014 11:08 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I'm sure their football program is doing wonders for school spirit and whatnot, but they have a big problem if they ever want to drastically improve academics in that they are essentially just a UT feeder school. Google the CAP program.

Then again, Boise pretty much smears any academic argument. I guess the fast track for UTSA would be -- become the next Boise.

but remember that Boise was treated as if they were the armpit of the region by the MWC for awhile.

(08-31-2014 11:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 11:08 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I'm sure their football program is doing wonders for school spirit and whatnot, but they have a big problem if they ever want to drastically improve academics in that they are essentially just a UT feeder school. Google the CAP program.

Then again, Boise pretty much smears any academic argument. I guess the fast track for UTSA would be -- become the next Boise.

but remember that Boise was treated as if they were the armpit of the region by the MWC for awhile.

Didn't stop the Big East/AAC from being interested. If it hadn't made such little, geographic sense, Boise would be in the AAC right now -- and UTSA is smack dab in the middle of the AAC's foot print.

(08-31-2014 11:11 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 11:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 11:08 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I'm sure their football program is doing wonders for school spirit and whatnot, but they have a big problem if they ever want to drastically improve academics in that they are essentially just a UT feeder school. Google the CAP program.

Then again, Boise pretty much smears any academic argument. I guess the fast track for UTSA would be -- become the next Boise.

but remember that Boise was treated as if they were the armpit of the region by the MWC for awhile.

Didn't stop the Big East/AAC from being interested. If it hadn't made such little, geographic sense, Boise would be in the AAC right now -- and UTSA is smack dab in the middle of the AAC's foot print.

I wouldn't say the MWC was ever "thrilled" in their pursuit of BSU, and always considered them 2nd class. I think the BE 2012 situation is an unfair comparison because at the time the Big East was trying hold on to its BCS status. Now that the AAC is in the same situation as the MWC, they will have a mindset similar to the MWC.

I would say the UTSA talk should back-off until the program gets a little history to it…Many of these start-up programs and new programs to FBS have some good success a few years after the move do to the sheer number of young players they start out with that turn into experienced JRs and SRs. Just like UTSA with thirty something seniors on their team….Lets see how they sustain success over a longer period of time before we crown them as the next big thing in college football.