(03-16-2015 03:08 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  why add these teams now?!?!?! If we wanted nonfb we should have stayed and worked it out with Gtown, Nova, Etc

Yep. We shouldn't add anyone. We are finally going to have our first real season.

Not too mention, cutting the pie.

(03-16-2015 12:38 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  why would VCU leave the A10?

lateral move...

AAC > MVC

Much of A-10 is a "bus league", which helps with travel cost for most of their Olympic Sports teams.



AAC is much larger (heck, even for schools "next door" to another AAC state...its still a flight from ECU to Memphis, located at the opposite ends of their state etc...)

(03-17-2015 07:56 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:38 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  why would VCU leave the A10?

lateral move...

AAC > MVC

Much of A-10 is a "bus league", which helps with travel cost for most of their Olympic Sports teams.



AAC is much larger (heck, even for schools "next door" to another AAC state...its still a flight from ECU to Memphis, located at the opposite ends of their state etc...)

Lmfao... Yeah the A10 is totally a bus league for VCU. And why is it that nobody gets Olympic sports scheduling and travel?

The A10 is every bit as good as the AAC just without ESPN. Doesn't seem to be hurting that conference either.

I agree with many people here, the AAC should add Wichita State as the 12th olympic sports member. Their resume speaks for itself, located in a good size metro area of 637k in a rabid basketball state, with a large following currently. For WSU a move to the AAC is surely a step-up from the MVC and a no-brainer at that. Would be a win-win for both sides. Would level out the conference at 12 football and 12 basketball playing members, as well as adding another tournament quality team.

If the AAC can pry away VCU and one of Dayton/St Louis as well, increasing olympic sports to 14 teams, that would be awesome as well. Like others have said 1-3 non-football members is not going to have any voting control over this conference unlike the evenly split 8-8 Big East of old. At a MINIMUM send WSU an invite after the tourney.

Additionally if Wichita does decide to bring back football, they could be groomed and brought up slowly eventually to FBS/AAC status. With this conference's recruiting ties to Texas and Florida it wouldn't take WSU long to rebuild their football program.

You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

(03-17-2015 08:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

Witchita St would accept before Aresco was halfway finished with the question. One is all we really need to add. I'd prefer 3. Would VCU and Dayton come---maybe, maybe not. It costs us nothing to ask. There is no doubt that the following lineup blows the A-10 out of the water--

UConn
Cinci
SMU
Temple
Memphis
Tulsa
Wichita St
VCU
Dayton

That's a conference with every game nationally televised (most on ESPN networks) with a renegotiation coming in 2 years. The MAC got a 10-fold increase in their contract renegotiation. I don't think we get that---but a double, triple, or quadruple is not out of the question.

As for the C-7 leaving---they didn't leave because WE wanted only all sports members. THEY left because they didn't want FBS football members. If it was up to us, they would still be here. I've always said the folks who are anti-hybrid are simply afraid of their own shadow. The hybrid allows us to improve what CAN be improved (basketball) without further watering down our football product.

(03-17-2015 08:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

There is no question Wichita would sign the papers tomorrow.

I guess a simple alternative to stick to the AAC core belief of 12 all-sports teams would be to invite Navy for All-Sports, however I think Navy likes their olympic sports league and adding Navy for bball does nothing for the perception of this conference in basketball. In fact, it probably hurts that perception a little. Remind me, is Air Force in the MWC for all-sports or football only?

(03-17-2015 08:52 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I guess a simple alternative to stick to the AAC core belief of 12 all-sports teams would be to invite Navy for All-Sports, however I think Navy likes their olympic sports league and adding Navy for bball does nothing for the perception of this conference in basketball. In fact, it probably hurts that perception a little. Remind me, is Air Force in the MWC for all-sports or football only?

Due to location, Air Force doesn't have as many choices as Navy. It wasn't long ago that AF expressed an interest in moving their Olympic sports out of the MW in order to make them more competetive.

(03-17-2015 08:48 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

There is no question Wichita would sign the papers tomorrow.

If Wichita signs 1st, that makes it more likely we land another 2.

(03-17-2015 08:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:52 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I guess a simple alternative to stick to the AAC core belief of 12 all-sports teams would be to invite Navy for All-Sports, however I think Navy likes their olympic sports league and adding Navy for bball does nothing for the perception of this conference in basketball. In fact, it probably hurts that perception a little. Remind me, is Air Force in the MWC for all-sports or football only?

Due to location, Air Force doesn't have as many choices as Navy. It wasn't long ago that AF expressed an interest in moving their Olympic sports out of the MW in order to make them more competetive.

I agree the AAC is far to spread out for Navy's Olympic sports, though the MWC isn't much better for Air Force. It would make sense for Air Force to move their Olympic sports to the Big Sky or other western league. Personally I don't think adding Navy for all-sports is the right idea, so why not add a non-football member to balance out a football-only member like Navy?

(03-17-2015 09:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:52 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I guess a simple alternative to stick to the AAC core belief of 12 all-sports teams would be to invite Navy for All-Sports, however I think Navy likes their olympic sports league and adding Navy for bball does nothing for the perception of this conference in basketball. In fact, it probably hurts that perception a little. Remind me, is Air Force in the MWC for all-sports or football only?

Due to location, Air Force doesn't have as many choices as Navy. It wasn't long ago that AF expressed an interest in moving their Olympic sports out of the MW in order to make them more competetive.

I agree the AAC is far to spread out for Navy's Olympic sports, though the MWC isn't much better for Air Force. It would make sense for Air Force to move their Olympic sports to the Big Sky or other western league. Personally I don't think adding Navy for all-sports is the right idea, so why not add a non-football member to balance out a football-only member like Navy?

Navy isn't a good fit for the AAC for their other sports. Height restrictions make it really tough on them for basketball for example. They're right where they want to (and need to be) in the Patriot League.

Air Force has the same issues as Navy but they're relatively isolated in Colorado. They only other option that would make sense for them would be the Summit League but.... their rivalries with Wyoming and CSU go back 60 years or so. Air Force is in a unique situation for their other sports but they struggle in the MWC except in football.

(03-17-2015 09:00 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:48 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

There is no question Wichita would sign the papers tomorrow.

If Wichita signs 1st, that makes it more likely we land another 2.

With Wichita on board, I agree it makes it easier to land another 2. But if nobody would leave the Big East or A10 for the AAC, who would the other 2 be? I could see UAB being in the mix if they are unable to recover football, since they have a lot of history with the former C-USA teams as-well-as a strong basketball program. Not sure who is worthy of the third spot in this situation? Would obviously need to be someone who plays FCS football or no football at all within the footprint of this conference. Any others that come to mind?

In this scenario it's possible the conference would only add one member (WSU) I'd think.

(03-17-2015 09:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:52 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I guess a simple alternative to stick to the AAC core belief of 12 all-sports teams would be to invite Navy for All-Sports, however I think Navy likes their olympic sports league and adding Navy for bball does nothing for the perception of this conference in basketball. In fact, it probably hurts that perception a little. Remind me, is Air Force in the MWC for all-sports or football only?

Due to location, Air Force doesn't have as many choices as Navy. It wasn't long ago that AF expressed an interest in moving their Olympic sports out of the MW in order to make them more competetive.

I agree the AAC is far to spread out for Navy's Olympic sports, though the MWC isn't much better for Air Force. It would make sense for Air Force to move their Olympic sports to the Big Sky or other western league. Personally I don't think adding Navy for all-sports is the right idea, so why not add a non-football member to balance out a football-only member like Navy?

That's my preference. Navys Olympic sport are not very good.

(03-17-2015 08:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

Agreed.

(03-17-2015 08:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

Add WSU...only getting 2 bids makes us look lame.

(03-17-2015 09:28 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:00 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:48 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

There is no question Wichita would sign the papers tomorrow.

If Wichita signs 1st, that makes it more likely we land another 2.

With Wichita on board, I agree it makes it easier to land another 2. But if nobody would leave the Big East or A10 for the AAC, who would the other 2 be? I could see UAB being in the mix if they are unable to recover football, since they have a lot of history with the former C-USA teams as-well-as a strong basketball program. Not sure who is worthy of the third spot in this situation? Would obviously need to be someone who plays FCS football or no football at all within the footprint of this conference. Any others that come to mind?

In this scenario it's possible the conference would only add one member (WSU) I'd think.

The A-10 is not anywhere near the Big East in either prestige, performance, or money. Big East teams make 4 million a year from their media contract. The A-10 teams make about 350K each. A-10 teams would earn about 583K as members of the AAC. Like I said, maybe they come, maybe they don't. One thing you need to understand, athletics is really the front porch and the primary marketing arm of a school. The AAC appeals to a much larger swath of the country than the A-10. You might be surprised---an A-10 might just jump at the chance to be associated with a higher profile more spread out FBS conference. Like I said---you lose nothing by opening a dialogue.

(03-17-2015 10:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:28 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:00 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:48 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:28 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  You people who keep
suggesting these adds to the AAC...Im not sure half these teams would come here. Sorry.

Also...adding non fb schoola at this point would really make us look lame:

-Gtown, Nova, etc split and our comment was "Well we want a comprehensive all sports league with no split missions." Then TWO years later we add some A10 and Mo Vallry teams lol

pass

There is no question Wichita would sign the papers tomorrow.

If Wichita signs 1st, that makes it more likely we land another 2.

With Wichita on board, I agree it makes it easier to land another 2. But if nobody would leave the Big East or A10 for the AAC, who would the other 2 be? I could see UAB being in the mix if they are unable to recover football, since they have a lot of history with the former C-USA teams as-well-as a strong basketball program. Not sure who is worthy of the third spot in this situation? Would obviously need to be someone who plays FCS football or no football at all within the footprint of this conference. Any others that come to mind?

In this scenario it's possible the conference would only add one member (WSU) I'd think.

The A-10 is not anywhere near the Big East in either prestige, performance, or money. Big East teams make 4 million a year from their media contract. The A-10 teams make about 350K each. A-10 teams would earn about 583K as members of the AAC. Like I said, maybe they come, maybe they don't. One thing you need to understand, athletics is really the front porch and the primary marketing arm of a school. The AAC appeals to a much larger swath of the country than the A-10. You might be surprised---an A-10 might just jump at the chance to be associated with a higher profile more spread out FBS conference. Like I said---you lose nothing by opening a dialogue.

If the A10 teams felt certain UCONN, Cinci and Memphis were staying put, I'm sure they'd jump in a second. It's the fear that those teams might get another offer and bolt that would make the A10 teams somewhat hesitant.

(03-16-2015 10:44 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  It was in jest bearcat.

Seriously though, I think the AAC can show that it's in the top four or five basketball conferences next year if the ECU's of the world are forced to adopt a big boy schedule over the summer.

What I don't get about your comment is how did Cincinnati manage to get an at large bid even though they lost to both ECU and Tulane. Yet Temple and Tulsa swept ECU and Tulane; but neither Temple nor Tulsa got an at large bid, even though Temple and Tulsa both finished ahead of Cincinnati in the AAC standings. Cincinnati's OOC schedule didn't even look as difficult as the OOC schedules of Temple or Tulsa. So maybe there is something else at play other than the schedules of the ECU's of the world.