(11-24-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 08:23 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 12 all sports schools is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East faced with 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools. If we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are a long long way from ever going to being considered a power conference in football. We can be a respectable little football conference at some point----but being considered a power football conference may never be in the cards. However---- We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Besides----where is it written that adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference somehow precludes us from continuing to grow our football brand? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

Bingo! I don't see how adding 3 basketball schools wouldn't hurt and I'm not sure they would be willing to join anyway. Ncaa credits alone are net positive if 1 makes the tourney. Also ESPN would also "value" additional markets and add to a better inventory of games.

Make our conference as relevant as possible in every sport and give networks valuable content.

How about this???

West: SDSU, Colorado State, Boise State, UNLV

Central: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Navy

East: UCONN, Temple, ECU, Cincinnati

South: USF, UCF, Tulane, Memphis

Non-Football: Gonzaga, BYU, UMass
Football only: Navy

BYU and UMass have football scheduling agreements, including bowl games. BYU would play Boise St. and one team from each division - 5 games total each year. UMass would play 4 games each year. BYU and UMass would frequently play each other too.

Add: Las Vegas, Poinsettia, Heart of Dallas, Cactus bowl games. Perhaps, occasionally have BYU or UMass v. American in bowl games (to create better matchups than the alternatives).

16 football members, four 4-team divisions
18 for hoops - three 6-team divisions.

West: SDSU, Colorado State, Boise State, UNLV, Gonzaga, BYU

South: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, USF, UCF, Tulane

East: UCONN, Temple, Memphis, ECU, Cincinnati, UMass

Play H-H against your division and then rotate with 4 teams from each of the other two conferences, for an 18-game schedule.

Conference Bball tourney gives three division winners and one next best a bye into the quarterfinals.

(11-24-2014 03:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  How about this???

West: SDSU, Colorado State, Boise State, UNLV

Central: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Navy

East: UCONN, Temple, ECU, Cincinnati

South: USF, UCF, Tulane, Memphis

Non-Football: Gonzaga, BYU, UMass
Football only: Navy

BYU and UMass have football scheduling agreements, including bowl games. BYU would play Boise St. and one team from each division - 5 games total each year. UMass would play 4 games each year. BYU and UMass would frequently play each other too.

Add: Las Vegas, Poinsettia, Heart of Dallas, Cactus bowl games. Perhaps, occasionally have BYU or UMass v. American in bowl games (to create better matchups than the alternatives).

16 football members, four 4-team divisions
18 for hoops - three 6-team divisions.

West: SDSU, Colorado State, Boise State, UNLV, Gonzaga, BYU

South: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, USF, UCF, Tulane

East: UCONN, Temple, Memphis, ECU, Cincinnati, UMass

Play H-H against your division and then

Conference Bball tourney gives three division winners and one next best a bye into the quarterfinals.

You have 17 members with Navy. BYU other sports option is possible with a western pod though. Probably prefer VCU or WSU over Umass since they will want football asap.

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 08:23 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 12 all sports schools is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East faced with 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools. If we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are a long long way from ever going to being considered a power conference in football. We can be a respectable little football conference at some point----but being considered a power football conference may never be in the cards. However---- We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Besides----where is it written that adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference somehow precludes us from continuing to grow our football brand? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

Bingo! I don't see how adding 3 basketball schools wouldn't hurt and I'm not sure they would be willing to join anyway. Ncaa credits alone are net positive if 1 makes the tourney. Also ESPN would also "value" additional markets and add to a better inventory of games.

Make our conference as relevant as possible in every sport and give networks valuable content.

Basketball won't add squat to a TV contract. Let's say we do get some credits for NCAA it still won't be enough to offset a guaranteed TV contract that just gets split up more. If those teams don't make the NCAA, then we would be really screwed.

(11-23-2014 08:33 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I thought about posting this to the conference realignment board, but I would rather have the discussion here so we get more opinions from AAC fans -- although all are welcome, of course.

How would you guys feel about the AAC adding 2-4 non-football members to bolster our basketball? I personally would love 1-3 additional quality conference games per year to bolster our RPI and the conference's perception. The RPI of our bottom schools absolutely killed our seeding in the tournament last year and likely kept SMU out altogether.

However, there is the risk of having similar problems as the old Big East with competing interests between the football and basketball schools. Also, there is the issue of TV money -- would ESPN and/or CBS pitch in more money for better basketball inventory?

If the decision were mine, I would not worry about tension between football and non-football schools and move forward with exploring the possibility. If the TV money could be worked out, I would proceed with sending invites to VCU and Wichita State.

Both are calculated risks in the sense that most of the current success at those programs has been cultivated by Shaka Smart and Gregg Marshall, and there is always the risk either could leave for a higher-paying gigs. However, both schools have very loyal fan bases and, especially with an upgraded conference affiliation, I think they will be committed enough to basketball to overcome the loss of their coaches and remain competitive. VCU along with Navy bridges the northern schools to the southern schools, and Wichita State is only a few hours from Tulsa, so it is not far outside the current footprint.

I would avoid Catholic schools like Saint Louis because we would run the risk of them being later poached by the Big East -- which would be a huge black eye for the conference. Of course, one could make the argument that taking a school like St. Louis could limit the Big East's future expansion opportunities, thus killing two birds with one stone by simultaneously strengthening AAC basketball and hurting the Big East.

Thoughts?

What's the risk? The power would still remain overwhelmingly with the football schools. If the TV dollars are more with them in and it gives the AAC more exposure and more teams in the NCAA tournament why not?

The problem with the old Big East was the BBall schools had more power than the football schools. That won't be the case with the AAC

(11-24-2014 03:30 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 08:23 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 12 all sports schools is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East faced with 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools. If we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are a long long way from ever going to being considered a power conference in football. We can be a respectable little football conference at some point----but being considered a power football conference may never be in the cards. However---- We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Besides----where is it written that adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference somehow precludes us from continuing to grow our football brand? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

Bingo! I don't see how adding 3 basketball schools wouldn't hurt and I'm not sure they would be willing to join anyway. Ncaa credits alone are net positive if 1 makes the tourney. Also ESPN would also "value" additional markets and add to a better inventory of games.

Make our conference as relevant as possible in every sport and give networks valuable content.

Basketball won't add squat to a TV contract. Let's say we do get some credits for NCAA it still won't be enough to offset a guaranteed TV contract that just gets split up more. If those teams don't make the NCAA, then we would be really screwed.

That's is sometimes true. But GOOD basketball does add to a contract. See the Big East that gets more for JUST basketball than we do for FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL (twice as much as a matter of fact).

(11-24-2014 03:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  How about this???

West: SDSU, Colorado State, Boise State, UNLV

Central: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Navy

East: UCONN, Temple, ECU, Cincinnati

South: USF, UCF, Tulane, Memphis

Non-Football: Gonzaga, BYU, UMass
Football only: Navy

BYU and UMass have football scheduling agreements, including bowl games. BYU would play Boise St. and one team from each division - 5 games total each year. UMass would play 4 games each year. BYU and UMass would frequently play each other too.

Add: Las Vegas, Poinsettia, Heart of Dallas, Cactus bowl games. Perhaps, occasionally have BYU or UMass v. American in bowl games (to create better matchups than the alternatives).

16 football members, four 4-team divisions
18 for hoops - three 6-team divisions.

West: SDSU, Colorado State, Boise State, UNLV, Gonzaga, BYU

South: Houston, SMU, Tulsa, USF, UCF, Tulane

East: UCONN, Temple, Memphis, ECU, Cincinnati, UMass

Play H-H against your division and then

Conference Bball tourney gives three division winners and one next best a bye into the quarterfinals.

I'd take this over what we have now.

CCG in football could be played where?

(11-24-2014 03:30 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 08:23 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC could add up to 3 non-football schools without it affecting the conferences ability to look out for its best interests. Three basketball schools vs 12 all sports schools is never going to replicate the same conflicting dynamic that the Big East faced with 8 football schools vs 8 basketball schools. If we grabbed Wichita, VCU---and maybe one more solid A-10 school, we would really shore up basketball and give the Comference the depth required to take a loss of a school like UConn or Cinci and still be able to raid the A-10 for replacements.

Personally, I think it's worth doing because I can see we are a long long way from ever going to being considered a power conference in football. We can be a respectable little football conference at some point----but being considered a power football conference may never be in the cards. However---- We CAN be a top 3 power conference in basketball (we already are close). Why not be a power where we can? Besides----where is it written that adding a few powerful basketball programs to cement our position as a top basketball conference somehow precludes us from continuing to grow our football brand? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.

Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

Bingo! I don't see how adding 3 basketball schools wouldn't hurt and I'm not sure they would be willing to join anyway. Ncaa credits alone are net positive if 1 makes the tourney. Also ESPN would also "value" additional markets and add to a better inventory of games.

Make our conference as relevant as possible in every sport and give networks valuable content.

Basketball won't add squat to a TV contract. Let's say we do get some credits for NCAA it still won't be enough to offset a guaranteed TV contract that just gets split up more. If those teams don't make the NCAA, then we would be really screwed.

See the big east...granted they were paid to start up a network and fill inventory. $4 million for basketball only.

(11-24-2014 04:17 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:30 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 08:23 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

Bingo! I don't see how adding 3 basketball schools wouldn't hurt and I'm not sure they would be willing to join anyway. Ncaa credits alone are net positive if 1 makes the tourney. Also ESPN would also "value" additional markets and add to a better inventory of games.

Make our conference as relevant as possible in every sport and give networks valuable content.

Basketball won't add squat to a TV contract. Let's say we do get some credits for NCAA it still won't be enough to offset a guaranteed TV contract that just gets split up more. If those teams don't make the NCAA, then we would be really screwed.

See the big east...granted they were paid to start up a network and fill inventory. $4 million for basketball only.

Add WSU hoops, couple that with Navy football...and what the AAC has already done (Fiesta Bowl, mens/womens title) and sit down with ESPN...see what ESPN offers to add 4-5 more years to the deal.

(11-24-2014 04:06 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I'd take this over what we have now.

CCG in football could be played where?

I personally like the CCG model at the home stadium of the highest ranked participant. It better ensures that there will be a big crowd - may be just allow the visiting team a larger and better ticket allotment than a typical home game.

Otherwise, take your pick. New York, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, etc. The football CCG and basketball tournaments could rotate among the different venues.

Horrible idea and I wont even go into why... Just ask any team that was in the Big East. We'll all agree.


If we want to expand the best idea is 2-4 teams from BYU (dream), Boise, CSU, Air Force.

I personally really hope that Aresco makes another run at CSU and Air Force. It would nicely balance out our western division and add two quality teams in a new market... but only if we can a little bump in pay.

New Mexico is also an option but their football is just not good and Bball hasnt been consistent enough. I also dont think anything will happen as far as expansion until at least 2016. thats when the B10 gets their new TV deal and some conferences are gonna feel really inept after they see the numbers. (I expect it to be nearly 15 times what we get)

I like the NON RISK NO REWARD philosophy that's been thrown around here by some, but is it really worth the harm this league could receive!?!

The AAC already receives a nasty ugly insulting amount $$$ so taking a chance on something that could very well lift this league another level, then why the hell not.

Money ball question then becomes, who and how many basketball programs should the AAC consider and what criteria must future suitable members have in order to be looked at and later be added to the candidacy list!?!

I do believe the AAC must take this risk even if the current INSULTING amount isn't elevated but should start with one and that's

Wichita State

(11-23-2014 08:42 AM)UCFKnightfan08 Wrote:  I understand what you're thinking but don't want to go down a road where our members have different motives. At least right now every team in the conference has the same end goal: get into the Big 12

Hahahahahaha

(11-24-2014 06:08 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Horrible idea and I wont even go into why... Just ask any team that was in the Big East. We'll all agree.


If we want to expand the best idea is 2-4 teams from BYU (dream), Boise, CSU, Air Force.

I personally really hope that Aresco makes another run at CSU and Air Force. It would nicely balance out our western division and add two quality teams in a new market... but only if we can a little bump in pay.

New Mexico is also an option but their football is just not good and Bball hasnt been consistent enough. I also dont think anything will happen as far as expansion until at least 2016. thats when the B10 gets their new TV deal and some conferences are gonna feel really inept after they see the numbers. (I expect it to be nearly 15 times what we get)

Dude, the way the AAC played in football this year are you ever worried the expansion talk may reverse and it ll be AAC teams plucked to the MWC?? No MWC teams are coming....I'll go further to say the obvious. BYU and Boise would lose tv $ by coming to the AAC and the 3 extra bucks a year the other MWC teams would get from the AAC would be negated by the extra travel from the pacific to the eastern time zones several times a year....

(11-24-2014 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:30 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 08:23 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  Since we are already the conference that no one can name the teams in it, let's further complicate the American. Why can't we build what we have? A basketball power conference doesn't help us or make us more money, but more teams does take away money. We are trying to build a brand. I don't get the fascination with adding basketball only schools to the conference that was the BE before it blew up because of this same problem, and those schools had more name power then the schools everyone wants to add.

So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

Bingo! I don't see how adding 3 basketball schools wouldn't hurt and I'm not sure they would be willing to join anyway. Ncaa credits alone are net positive if 1 makes the tourney. Also ESPN would also "value" additional markets and add to a better inventory of games.

Make our conference as relevant as possible in every sport and give networks valuable content.

Basketball won't add squat to a TV contract. Let's say we do get some credits for NCAA it still won't be enough to offset a guaranteed TV contract that just gets split up more. If those teams don't make the NCAA, then we would be really screwed.

That's is sometimes true. But GOOD basketball does add to a contract. See the Big East that gets more for JUST basketball than we do for FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL (twice as much as a matter of fact).

That's because Fox needed content and it hasn't worked out well at all. There numbers are horrible.

(11-24-2014 06:08 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Horrible idea and I wont even go into why... Just ask any team that was in the Big East. We'll all agree.


If we want to expand the best idea is 2-4 teams from BYU (dream), Boise, CSU, Air Force.

I personally really hope that Aresco makes another run at CSU and Air Force. It would nicely balance out our western division and add two quality teams in a new market... but only if we can a little bump in pay.

New Mexico is also an option but their football is just not good and Bball hasnt been consistent enough. I also dont think anything will happen as far as expansion until at least 2016. thats when the B10 gets their new TV deal and some conferences are gonna feel really inept after they see the numbers. (I expect it to be nearly 15 times what we get)

I think it is a horrible idea to have a 50-50 league comprised of equal parts all-sports schools and non-football schools. It's pretty easy to see how that could become a tar pit of tortured decision making amid a counter-productive cross current of differing future goals. But 12 football members with 2 non-football members is so far from that model that its silly to compare the two. It would be like worrying that a couple of Republican Congressional districts will cause the entire state of New York to turn red in the next presidential election.

(11-24-2014 06:39 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:30 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So then---whats it matter? We have no identity---you said it yourself. May as well add a few solid teams to make the league a power presence in a revenue high profile sport that CAN establish a strong public identity. How exactly does that preclude building what we have? If we add Wichita and VCU---is Tulane going to curl up in a ball and stop developing the program? Is Memphis going to stop pumping money into athletics? Is ECU going to stop trying to build up its basketball program? That's a silly straw dog argument. We can add teams AND build what we have. Its not an "either" "or" choice.

Adding basketball schools actually cuts the pie FAR less than adding all sports schools. We get about 7 million for basketball. A full basketball share is $636,000. Adding 2 basketball teams means we lose less than 100K per school. If the added RPI from having Wichita and VCU in the league gets an extra team or two in the tournament---we MAKE money on the deal. Plus the Big East has proven that we CAN increase our market value by having better basketball.

We are a G5 league. Its my contention that if we really care about being perceived as a power league---then we leave no method of increasing our market value unused. If we are not willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the perception and value of the conference---then we really are not all that committed anyway.

Bingo! I don't see how adding 3 basketball schools wouldn't hurt and I'm not sure they would be willing to join anyway. Ncaa credits alone are net positive if 1 makes the tourney. Also ESPN would also "value" additional markets and add to a better inventory of games.

Make our conference as relevant as possible in every sport and give networks valuable content.

Basketball won't add squat to a TV contract. Let's say we do get some credits for NCAA it still won't be enough to offset a guaranteed TV contract that just gets split up more. If those teams don't make the NCAA, then we would be really screwed.

That's is sometimes true. But GOOD basketball does add to a contract. See the Big East that gets more for JUST basketball than we do for FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL (twice as much as a matter of fact).

That's because Fox needed content and it hasn't worked out well at all. There numbers are horrible.

Their numbers are horrible. Maybe next time they make a run at signing us----a bidding war would be nice....Or maybe we end up on ESPN AND Fox Sports-1, and bid adios to the even less watched CBS-Sports Network.

(11-24-2014 06:21 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 06:08 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Horrible idea and I wont even go into why... Just ask any team that was in the Big East. We'll all agree.


If we want to expand the best idea is 2-4 teams from BYU (dream), Boise, CSU, Air Force.

I personally really hope that Aresco makes another run at CSU and Air Force. It would nicely balance out our western division and add two quality teams in a new market... but only if we can a little bump in pay.

New Mexico is also an option but their football is just not good and Bball hasnt been consistent enough. I also dont think anything will happen as far as expansion until at least 2016. thats when the B10 gets their new TV deal and some conferences are gonna feel really inept after they see the numbers. (I expect it to be nearly 15 times what we get)

Dude, the way the AAC played in football this year are you ever worried the expansion talk may reverse and it ll be AAC teams plucked to the MWC?? No MWC teams are coming....

If the AAC some how manages (Only matter of time) to entice BYU to join, any MWC member will jump at the opportunity, including Boise... I seriously doubt Aresco and Co. (Navy) would want any part of Boise again, though.

(11-24-2014 06:48 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 06:21 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 06:08 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Horrible idea and I wont even go into why... Just ask any team that was in the Big East. We'll all agree.


If we want to expand the best idea is 2-4 teams from BYU (dream), Boise, CSU, Air Force.

I personally really hope that Aresco makes another run at CSU and Air Force. It would nicely balance out our western division and add two quality teams in a new market... but only if we can a little bump in pay.

New Mexico is also an option but their football is just not good and Bball hasnt been consistent enough. I also dont think anything will happen as far as expansion until at least 2016. thats when the B10 gets their new TV deal and some conferences are gonna feel really inept after they see the numbers. (I expect it to be nearly 15 times what we get)

Dude, the way the AAC played in football this year are you ever worried the expansion talk may reverse and it ll be AAC teams plucked to the MWC?? No MWC teams are coming....

If the AAC some how manages (Only matter of time) to entice BYU to join, any MWC member will jump at the opportunity, including Boise... I seriously doubt Aresco and Co. (Navy) would want any part of Boise again, though.

Biggie,You still think BYU's coming? By the way, they aren't that great. They beat a couple AAC teams but lost to one of the top 4 teams UCF and when they played against the better teams in the MWC they lost all 3. They did beat UNLV but I think we can agree that UNLV is pretty bad can't we? It's too tlate because of the Tulsa and Tulane invites IMHO. If those two weren't a part of these league and the following 6 were added to make the AAC look like this then it would be a heck of a league:

AAC East:
UCONN
Navy
Temple
Cincinnati
ECU
Memphis
UCF
USF
AAC West:
Houston
SMU
New Mexico
Air Force
Colorado St
BYU
Boise St
San Diego St
Those two divisions with the East/West set up would be the original idea the WAC had with their "best of the rest" gone right.--without adding a couple of duds the WAC did like Tulsa and San Jose St (AAC's mistake with Tulsa and Tulane) plus getting Houston which me and you have agreed before was the biggest mistake for the WAC and Houston in the spring of 94. Ahhh the WAC in 94 and the AAC in 2012 were both on the cusp..I digress...

(11-24-2014 06:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 06:39 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:30 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Bingo! I don't see how adding 3 basketball schools wouldn't hurt and I'm not sure they would be willing to join anyway. Ncaa credits alone are net positive if 1 makes the tourney. Also ESPN would also "value" additional markets and add to a better inventory of games.

Make our conference as relevant as possible in every sport and give networks valuable content.

Basketball won't add squat to a TV contract. Let's say we do get some credits for NCAA it still won't be enough to offset a guaranteed TV contract that just gets split up more. If those teams don't make the NCAA, then we would be really screwed.

That's is sometimes true. But GOOD basketball does add to a contract. See the Big East that gets more for JUST basketball than we do for FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL (twice as much as a matter of fact).

That's because Fox needed content and it hasn't worked out well at all. There numbers are horrible.

Their numbers are horrible. Maybe next time they make a run at signing us----a bidding war would be nice....Or maybe we end up on ESPN AND Fox Sports-1, and bid adios to the even less watched CBS-Sports Network.

Are you saying that cbs-sports network is less watched than fox sports 1? Wow, I know neither are Espin but, I though cbssn had more availability at this point?