(02-22-2017 01:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As a comparison, CUSA, where Rice currently plays had ZERO games with over 1 million viewers that same year.

But Rice would have some conference football game viewership over 1M, if it was in the AAC.

Just like you would surely argue the same about Houston if it was in the Big 12 or PAC.

In regard to Mountain West schools leaving for the AAC:

There is not enough incentive for mountain time zone schools to ship their students east for the majority of conference away games. What is much more likely is Texas C-USA schools Rice and UTEP or even North Texas or UTSA joining the MWC.

The MWC schools have dug in and formed the second-tier western conference. Are UNM fans going to be more excited about Tulane and Tulsa or long standing rivalries with Wyoming and Air Force? (I just randomly picked divisional opponents.) As of right now, the conference flagship Boise State is a yearly opponent as well.

(02-22-2017 02:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 01:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As a comparison, CUSA, where Rice currently plays had ZERO games with over 1 million viewers that same year.

But Rice would have some conference football game viewership over 1M, if it was in the AAC.

Just like you would surely argue the same about Houston if it was in the Big 12 or PAC.

Ain't nobody gonna have that kind of viewership playing on BeIN

(02-22-2017 02:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Ain't nobody gonna have that kind of viewership playing on BeIN

Only non-casual viewers are watching CUSA football, for any significant length of time. Those people will find the game, if the channel is in their package.

(02-22-2017 02:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  There is not enough incentive for mountain time zone schools to ship their students east for the majority of conference away games. What is much more likely is Texas C-USA schools Rice and UTEP or even North Texas or UTSA joining the MWC.

UTEP certainly. El Paso is almost right in line with Denver, north-south.

Rice? Unless a significant portion of their students came from the west, I would see them resisting a moving to the MWC unless it was a significant upgrade in multiple senses from the CUSA. Houston is firmly Central Timezone.

UTSA/Texas St ... I would still guess they'd prefer to be lumped in with Houston/Dallas than with the west.

(02-22-2017 02:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 01:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As a comparison, CUSA, where Rice currently plays had ZERO games with over 1 million viewers that same year.

But Rice would have some conference football game viewership over 1M, if it was in the AAC.

Just like you would surely argue the same about Houston if it was in the Big 12 or PAC.

I don't agree---as a number of AAC teams (like Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa) haven't added any 1 million plus viewer games, but lets just say you're right. Whats the argument for selecting Rice when your theory says ANYONE the AAC added would suddenly start adding "million plus" viewer games to the conference? Wouldn't the AAC be better off adding a diferent school with better attendance (more attractive to bowls), in a different city (expanding the footprint), with a bigger budget, a larger enrollment (more long term potential), that consistently wins more games (winning draws more viewers)?

Look, Im not anti-Rice. In fact, I generally try to attend at least one Rice game a year. I try to support Houston sports teams and I love the West U view from the stadium. I just don't see them as a value added fit for the AAC. That said, I think they make ALOT of sense as a Mountain West addition---especially if paired with a large Texas public like UTSA, N Texas, or Texas St.

(02-22-2017 02:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 02:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Ain't nobody gonna have that kind of viewership playing on BeIN

Only non-casual viewers are watching CUSA football, for any significant length of time. Those people will find the game, if the channel is in their package.

Right, with some difficulty I'll tell you. But if you put CUSA's conference game on a Saturday on ABC like the AAC's then I think WKU/La Tech would pretty well compared to how Temple/Navy did.

(02-22-2017 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 02:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  There is not enough incentive for mountain time zone schools to ship their students east for the majority of conference away games. What is much more likely is Texas C-USA schools Rice and UTEP or even North Texas or UTSA joining the MWC.

UTEP certainly. El Paso is almost right in line with Denver, north-south.

Rice? Unless a significant portion of their students came from the west, I would see them resisting a moving to the MWC unless it was a significant upgrade in multiple senses from the CUSA. Houston is firmly Central Timezone.

UTSA/Texas St ... I would still guess they'd prefer to be lumped in with Houston/Dallas than with the west.

Rice and UTEP were serious about it last summer. Most likely from an institutional standpoint. It is an upgrade from C-USA athletically and academically.

(02-22-2017 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Would the AAC be better off adding a diferent school with better attendance (more attractive to bowls), in a different city (expanding the footprint), that consistently wins more games (winning draws more viewers).

- Rice fans will travel just fine, if/when their team goes bowling
- footprint expansion is irrelevant if the new team doesn't get much attention in their new market!
- winning is great ... on the other hand, are the existing AAC teams really looking for a world-beater to come in and immediately steal away the conf title?? Goes both ways, there.


And, as already mentioned by other posters, college presidents favor additional attributes that you're not considering, some of which Rice is particularly strong.

(02-22-2017 02:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Would the AAC be better off adding a diferent school with better attendance (more attractive to bowls), in a different city (expanding the footprint), that consistently wins more games (winning draws more viewers).

- Rice fans will travel just fine, if/when their team goes bowling
- footprint expansion is irrelevant if the new team doesn't get much attention in their new market!
- winning is great ... on the other hand, are the existing AAC teams really looking for a world-beater to come in and immediately steal away the conf title?? Goes both ways, there.


And, as already mentioned by other posters, college presidents favor additional attributes that you're not considering, some of which Rice is particularly strong.

I don't even think your really believe what you are saying. Ive argued that academics will be a significant factor in the decision (its one reason I think keeping UConn or adding nobody is a real possibility). Like I said before, Rice makes 1000 times more sense as a Mountain West addition than as an AAC replacement. Pair Rice with another large Texas public (UTSA, Texas St, or N Texas), and I think you really have a smart addition for the MW, who have no current exposure in Texas. If the AAC wants to add a school that's an academic replacement for UConn, UMass makes more sense than Rice for the AAC.

The biggest problem for the AAC if UConn were to leave is that Temple becomes a real geographic outlier. This doesn't matter in football, but for basketball and Olympic team sports, this is a problem. They should really look at adding someone to be a travel partner. UMass might fit the bill, but someone in the NY-DC corridor would make the most sense. VCU as a non-football member or Old Dominion as an all sports member may make sense as well.

(02-22-2017 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't even think your really believe what you are saying.

I'm saying that you sound like a paranoid Houston fan who is desperate to keep Rice out of the AAC, without actually having a valid argument for doing that.

I'm believing it more and more ..

(02-22-2017 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the AAC wants to add a school that's an academic replacement for UConn, UMass makes more sense than Rice for the AAC.

UMass is no where near the same academic reputation as Rice.

(02-22-2017 02:42 PM)orangefan Wrote:  The biggest problem for the AAC if UConn were to leave is that Temple becomes a real geographic outlier. This doesn't matter in football, but for basketball and Olympic team sports, this is a problem. They should really look at adding someone to be a travel partner. UMass might fit the bill, but someone in the NY-DC corridor would make the most sense. VCU as a non-football member or Old Dominion as an all sports member may make sense as well.

The problem isn't being a geographic outlier per se ... the AAC has no geography. It stretches from Tulsa down to Houston, over to S Florida, up to Connecticut. That's everything.

The problem is that Temple wouldn't feel like it has any regional rivalry that fans give a hoot (pun intended!) about for non-football sports. Not sure that VCU does it, either.


But Temple is just one vote, and it doesn't have anywhere else to go, unless it wants to go back to the A10 and independent in football ... joining UMass and UConn, in that sense.

(02-22-2017 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't even think your really believe what you are saying.

I'm saying that you sound like a paranoid Houston fan who is desperate to keep Rice out of the AAC, without actually having a valid argument for doing that.

I'm believing it more and more ..

(02-22-2017 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If the AAC wants to add a school that's an academic replacement for UConn, UMass makes more sense than Rice for the AAC.

UMass is no where near the same academic reputation as Rice.

Reading comprehension is important. UMass is a replacment for UConn. UMass has a similar academic ranking as UConn, is a state flagship, and is located in the northeast.

As for arguments, I have made several reasonable arguments including Rice would add no TV value, Rice would not add to the leagues appeal to bowls, Rice would not expand the footprint, Rice would double dip in one city, and Rice would not add to the leagues attraction as much as a team that wins more.

Your responses have claimed--

1) The AAC has no TV value. Demonstrably incorrect as Rice gets 200K and the AAC schools get 2 million each (10 times as much).

2) You've claimed Rice travels as well as the large public school counterparts. You offered no proof of this. But logic would indicate that a school with a near empty stadium and a student body of 6K is unlikely to rival a school with higher attendance and a larger student body.

3) You've claimed that footprint expansion is irrelevant if the new team doesn't get much attention in their market. And? Rice doesn't get much attention in their market. So how is your point releavent to the question of adding Rice?

4) You've suggested that anyone we add will bring a million+ viewers. No proof offered.

5) In response to a winning team being more helpful to the AAC---your response was

"- winning is great ... on the other hand, are the existing AAC teams really looking for a world-beater to come in and immediately steal away the conf title?? Goes both ways, there"


So--I guess your theory is conferences look to add crappy teams they can easily beat.

Like I said, I don't think you even believe some of the crap you are saying. But if you really do believe that silliness--then this whole discussion is simply pointless.

(02-19-2017 11:59 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(02-19-2017 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Fans don't care about AAC opponents, which matters because you have to sell tickets even in years when you aren't contending for a national title. UConn is losing its basketball buzz, and that's worrisome.

Selling tickets extends to football as well.

It would be interesting to see who is going to be interested in watching MAC teams (or the NM States, UMasses, etc).

Yes, which is why I've never said that UConn would or should be willing to put their hoops in the Big East if it means football goes to the MAC or anywhere worse than the AAC.

My contention is that if UConn were to call the AAC's bluff and move their basketball to the Big East, the AAC would not kick their football out.

(02-19-2017 12:08 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(02-19-2017 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Temple isn't UConn. It's not a state flagship. Different beast. UConn is just more valuable overall than Temple. If the ACC or B1G were to decide to expand in the northeast, UConn would be at the top of their lists, Temple wouldn't get a minute's discussion.

That's just the way it is.

If Northern State flagships were the rage, then the AAC would have invited UMass a long time ago... and probably bumped up Delaware and Maine while they were at it.

We're not talking about an endangered species.

Maine and Delaware aren't in the same discussion as UConn. We all know that.

UConn is a lot more valuable than Temple hoops or no hoops. It's just the way it is.

I don't see UConn going anywhere I think we're happy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(02-22-2017 05:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, which is why I've never said that UConn would or should be willing to put their hoops in the Big East if it means football goes to the MAC or anywhere worse than the AAC.

My contention is that if UConn were to call the AAC's bluff and move their basketball to the Big East, the AAC would not kick their football out.

I just don't see anything validating this as beyond a wild guess.

UConn football does almost literally nothing for the AAC. Houston, Memphis, Florida's, Cincy, ECU ... those are the actually important football programs.

(02-21-2017 07:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  What is the next in line order?

Rice? USM? Does UTSA get in on its upstart potential?

It's UTSA. No question.

If Uconn leaves the AAC, we snag Arizona and Arizona St before the Big 12 can.

Cheers!