Memphis is doing an overhaul at the moment. Time to get players that fit our style and program. Leave egos at the door

(03-14-2017 05:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Adding Wichita State would not add instability for the American. It would add stability in a consistent, basketball-first program, with resources and tremendous fan support and - most importantly - within the footprint of the league.

Adding WSU wouldn't be like adding a group of non-football schools; it is adding one school to compliment the football-only arrangement of Navy. One school will not tilt the balance away from being a football-first conference the way it is currently constructed.

The only concern about WSU would be who replaces Gregg Marshall if/when he decides to move on. If they hire the wrong replacement, Wichita State could go back to being the way they were from 1988 - 2011 - a period where they only had one tournament appearance.

From 2000-08 they did OK with Turgeon. Eventhou they had one NCAA appearance being in the MVC didn't help. The year they went to their one NCAA appearance (sweet 16) was the year the MVC got 4 teams and Packer and Nance had a cow about it. They also went to 3 NITs in this period.

(03-14-2017 05:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Adding Wichita State would not add instability for the American. It would add stability in a consistent, basketball-first program, with resources and tremendous fan support and - most importantly - within the footprint of the league.

Adding WSU wouldn't be like adding a group of non-football schools; it is adding one school to compliment the football-only arrangement of Navy. One school will not tilt the balance away from being a football-first conference the way it is currently constructed.

The only concern about WSU would be who replaces Gregg Marshall if/when he decides to move on. If they hire the wrong replacement, Wichita State could go back to being the way they were from 1988 - 2011 - a period where they only had one tournament appearance.

I didn't say instability, I said zero additional dollars on the current and future TV contract. (Bolded so the WSU fan doesn't get his jimmies rustled again)

(03-14-2017 05:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Adding Wichita State would not add instability for the American. It would add stability in a consistent, basketball-first program, with resources and tremendous fan support and - most importantly - within the footprint of the league.

Adding WSU wouldn't be like adding a group of non-football schools; it is adding one school to compliment the football-only arrangement of Navy. One school will not tilt the balance away from being a football-first conference the way it is currently constructed.

The only concern about WSU would be who replaces Gregg Marshall if/when he decides to move on. If they hire the wrong replacement, Wichita State could go back to being the way they were from 1988 - 2011 - a period where they only had one tournament appearance.

I didn't say instability, I said zero additional dollars on the current and future TV contract. (Bolded so the WSU fan doesn't get his jimmies rustled again)

But would you agree that the conference would, in fact, be making more money due to NCAA Tournament credits?

(03-14-2017 05:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Adding Wichita State would not add instability for the American. It would add stability in a consistent, basketball-first program, with resources and tremendous fan support and - most importantly - within the footprint of the league.

Adding WSU wouldn't be like adding a group of non-football schools; it is adding one school to compliment the football-only arrangement of Navy. One school will not tilt the balance away from being a football-first conference the way it is currently constructed.

The only concern about WSU would be who replaces Gregg Marshall if/when he decides to move on. If they hire the wrong replacement, Wichita State could go back to being the way they were from 1988 - 2011 - a period where they only had one tournament appearance.

I didn't say instability, I said zero additional dollars on the current and future TV contract. (Bolded so the WSU fan doesn't get his jimmies rustled again)

Depends on the upcoming television negotionations if the network says adding them gets us more money add them. We have already proven we are giving ESPN a deal with our football. The conference shows we are making hoops stronger it can up our football/ hoops contract.

(03-14-2017 05:42 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Adding Wichita State would not add instability for the American. It would add stability in a consistent, basketball-first program, with resources and tremendous fan support and - most importantly - within the footprint of the league.

Adding WSU wouldn't be like adding a group of non-football schools; it is adding one school to compliment the football-only arrangement of Navy. One school will not tilt the balance away from being a football-first conference the way it is currently constructed.

The only concern about WSU would be who replaces Gregg Marshall if/when he decides to move on. If they hire the wrong replacement, Wichita State could go back to being the way they were from 1988 - 2011 - a period where they only had one tournament appearance.

I didn't say instability, I said zero additional dollars on the current and future TV contract. (Bolded so the WSU fan doesn't get his jimmies rustled again)

But would you agree that the conference would, in fact, be making more money due to NCAA Tournament credits?

Sure. Is a Wichita St a stone-cold lock to advance every year? No. So any money they bring isn't enough to justify their inclusion.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't hate WSU and the others mentioned. I just don't see the monetary value (minus tourney credits) in bringing them in. I dare say they bring no monetary value. but then, I'm talking TV contract dollars and not tourney credits.

And ignore the fact that nbe makes 5 million a year off their basketball tv deal. So yes in fact adding a highly recognizable basketball name to play the likes of UConn, Cinci, Temple, Memphis, and now SMU would help. Having a more concentrated geographic footprint with highly visible top tier programs will help in both our pull and media coverage. Hell just the publicity alone is enough of a jack up in conference recognizability. There are almost no negatives to adding them, several positives, and a lot of potential positives.

And we have some schools who haven't been to the dance since the 1990's (ECU/Tulane). WSU has been to 6 straight dances and one of those was a Final Four (2013). You'd have to be pretty negative to think that didn't matter. They are averaging 30.2 wins per year over the last five seasons. They have a top 10 paid coach in america. Their main donors have a net worth of over $100 Billion (Kochs). They sell out every home game and have for years. On and on. And they did all that in the MVC. Think what they can accomplish in the AAC!

(03-14-2017 05:50 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:42 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Adding Wichita State would not add instability for the American. It would add stability in a consistent, basketball-first program, with resources and tremendous fan support and - most importantly - within the footprint of the league.

Adding WSU wouldn't be like adding a group of non-football schools; it is adding one school to compliment the football-only arrangement of Navy. One school will not tilt the balance away from being a football-first conference the way it is currently constructed.

The only concern about WSU would be who replaces Gregg Marshall if/when he decides to move on. If they hire the wrong replacement, Wichita State could go back to being the way they were from 1988 - 2011 - a period where they only had one tournament appearance.

I didn't say instability, I said zero additional dollars on the current and future TV contract. (Bolded so the WSU fan doesn't get his jimmies rustled again)

But would you agree that the conference would, in fact, be making more money due to NCAA Tournament credits?

Sure. Is a Wichita St a stone-cold lock to advance every year? No. So any money they bring isn't enough to justify their inclusion.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't hate WSU and the others mentioned. I just don't see the monetary value (minus tourney credits) in bringing them in. I dare say they bring no monetary value. but then, I'm talking TV contract dollars and not tourney credits.

Personally, Im not prepared to say they wouldn't add value to the AAC contract because they clearly add at least 10 typically high value games to the AAC basketball inventory (vs UConn, Cinci, Memphis, Temple, SMU). Thats the EXACT kind of thing that IS attractive to a network.

When you consider that the current inventory of attractive games in the AAC is just the games between SMU, Cinci, Memphis, UConn, and Temple---that's just 20 games (assuming they all play a home and home). That means adding Wichita increases the attractive inventory by 50% (10 games). That doesn't include any attractive OOC games they might play. If Dayton and VCU also join, the attractive inventory jumps by a whopping 26 games. So adding all 3 would nearly triple the number of high quality inventory from the current level (from 20 to 56--a 280% increase). That has value. It also changes the percentage of quality games vs the total inventory. Right now, 20 quality games out of 99 total games is just 20%. With Wichita, Dayton, and VCU---its 56 of 126 (44%) quality inventory.

You see, the more quality teams you have in league--it makes a big difference in your attractive TV inventory--not to mention being nice for the old RPI. Once ypu get to a certain critical mass, adding one team makes a huge difference in the quality inventory of games. That same math does the same thing to RPI (because 75% of RPI is made up of who your opponents play and who your opponents opponents played).

Those additions also likely help every school by selling a few more tickets to a home game----AND, as mentioned by others, they bring in extra NCAA credits. So I don't agree that they "cost" money. I suspect they are revenue neutral at worst and are more likely a net plus in the revenue column.

(03-14-2017 11:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:50 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:42 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:24 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Adding Wichita State would not add instability for the American. It would add stability in a consistent, basketball-first program, with resources and tremendous fan support and - most importantly - within the footprint of the league.

Adding WSU wouldn't be like adding a group of non-football schools; it is adding one school to compliment the football-only arrangement of Navy. One school will not tilt the balance away from being a football-first conference the way it is currently constructed.

The only concern about WSU would be who replaces Gregg Marshall if/when he decides to move on. If they hire the wrong replacement, Wichita State could go back to being the way they were from 1988 - 2011 - a period where they only had one tournament appearance.

I didn't say instability, I said zero additional dollars on the current and future TV contract. (Bolded so the WSU fan doesn't get his jimmies rustled again)

But would you agree that the conference would, in fact, be making more money due to NCAA Tournament credits?

Sure. Is a Wichita St a stone-cold lock to advance every year? No. So any money they bring isn't enough to justify their inclusion.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't hate WSU and the others mentioned. I just don't see the monetary value (minus tourney credits) in bringing them in. I dare say they bring no monetary value. but then, I'm talking TV contract dollars and not tourney credits.

Personally, Im not prepared to say they wouldn't add value to the AAC contract because they clearly add at least 10 typically high value games to the AAC basketball inventory (vs UConn, Cinci, Memphis, Temple, SMU). Thats the EXACT kind of thing that IS attractive to a network.

When you consider that the current inventory of attractive games in the AAC is just the games between SMU, Cinci, Memphis, UConn, and Temple---that's just 20 games (assuming they all play a home and home). That means adding Wichita increases the attractive inventory by 50% (10 games). That doesn't include any attractive OOC games they might play. If Dayton and VCU also join, the attractive inventory jumps by a whopping 26 games. So adding all 3 would nearly triple the number of high quality inventory from the current level (from 20 to 56--a 280% increase). That has value. It also changes the percentage of quality games vs the total inventory. Right now, 20 quality games out of 99 total games is just 20%. With Wichita, Dayton, and VCU---its 56 of 126 (44%) quality inventory.

You see, the more quality teams you have in league--it makes a big difference in your attractive TV inventory--not to mention being nice for the old RPI. Once ypu get to a certain critical mass, adding one team makes a huge difference in the quality inventory of games. That same math does the same thing to RPI (because 75% of RPI is made up of who your opponents play and who your opponents opponents played).

Those additions also likely help every school by selling a few more tickets to a home game----AND, as mentioned by others, they bring in extra NCAA credits. So I don't agree that they "cost" money. I suspect they are revenue neutral at worst and are more likely a net plus in the revenue column.

We make so little money that it's hard to argue that any new addition is going to "cost" us much money. I mean, what's the difference between $20 million divided 12 ways and 13 ways?

But the problem i have is the knee-jerk aspect of this. Our basketball is in a slump so let's invite Hot School X!!! It's reflected in posts we see during football season, where say Western Kentucky knocks off a P5 team, and immediately we get a post saying "Aresco should invite Western Kentucky !" and a bunch of people chime in saying it's a great idea.

Wichita State has good basketball, but that can end at any time. What real enduring value does Wichita State bring? Not much I can think of.

(03-15-2017 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:50 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:42 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I didn't say instability, I said zero additional dollars on the current and future TV contract. (Bolded so the WSU fan doesn't get his jimmies rustled again)

But would you agree that the conference would, in fact, be making more money due to NCAA Tournament credits?

Sure. Is a Wichita St a stone-cold lock to advance every year? No. So any money they bring isn't enough to justify their inclusion.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't hate WSU and the others mentioned. I just don't see the monetary value (minus tourney credits) in bringing them in. I dare say they bring no monetary value. but then, I'm talking TV contract dollars and not tourney credits.

Personally, Im not prepared to say they wouldn't add value to the AAC contract because they clearly add at least 10 typically high value games to the AAC basketball inventory (vs UConn, Cinci, Memphis, Temple, SMU). Thats the EXACT kind of thing that IS attractive to a network.

When you consider that the current inventory of attractive games in the AAC is just the games between SMU, Cinci, Memphis, UConn, and Temple---that's just 20 games (assuming they all play a home and home). That means adding Wichita increases the attractive inventory by 50% (10 games). That doesn't include any attractive OOC games they might play. If Dayton and VCU also join, the attractive inventory jumps by a whopping 26 games. So adding all 3 would nearly triple the number of high quality inventory from the current level (from 20 to 56--a 280% increase). That has value. It also changes the percentage of quality games vs the total inventory. Right now, 20 quality games out of 99 total games is just 20%. With Wichita, Dayton, and VCU---its 56 of 126 (44%) quality inventory.

You see, the more quality teams you have in league--it makes a big difference in your attractive TV inventory--not to mention being nice for the old RPI. Once ypu get to a certain critical mass, adding one team makes a huge difference in the quality inventory of games. That same math does the same thing to RPI (because 75% of RPI is made up of who your opponents play and who your opponents opponents played).

Those additions also likely help every school by selling a few more tickets to a home game----AND, as mentioned by others, they bring in extra NCAA credits. So I don't agree that they "cost" money. I suspect they are revenue neutral at worst and are more likely a net plus in the revenue column.

What real enduring value does Wichita State bring? Not much I can think of.

Same as Georgetown and USF basketball

(03-15-2017 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 11:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:50 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:42 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 05:40 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I didn't say instability, I said zero additional dollars on the current and future TV contract. (Bolded so the WSU fan doesn't get his jimmies rustled again)

But would you agree that the conference would, in fact, be making more money due to NCAA Tournament credits?

Sure. Is a Wichita St a stone-cold lock to advance every year? No. So any money they bring isn't enough to justify their inclusion.

Just so everyone is clear, I don't hate WSU and the others mentioned. I just don't see the monetary value (minus tourney credits) in bringing them in. I dare say they bring no monetary value. but then, I'm talking TV contract dollars and not tourney credits.

Personally, Im not prepared to say they wouldn't add value to the AAC contract because they clearly add at least 10 typically high value games to the AAC basketball inventory (vs UConn, Cinci, Memphis, Temple, SMU). Thats the EXACT kind of thing that IS attractive to a network.

When you consider that the current inventory of attractive games in the AAC is just the games between SMU, Cinci, Memphis, UConn, and Temple---that's just 20 games (assuming they all play a home and home). That means adding Wichita increases the attractive inventory by 50% (10 games). That doesn't include any attractive OOC games they might play. If Dayton and VCU also join, the attractive inventory jumps by a whopping 26 games. So adding all 3 would nearly triple the number of high quality inventory from the current level (from 20 to 56--a 280% increase). That has value. It also changes the percentage of quality games vs the total inventory. Right now, 20 quality games out of 99 total games is just 20%. With Wichita, Dayton, and VCU---its 56 of 126 (44%) quality inventory.

You see, the more quality teams you have in league--it makes a big difference in your attractive TV inventory--not to mention being nice for the old RPI. Once ypu get to a certain critical mass, adding one team makes a huge difference in the quality inventory of games. That same math does the same thing to RPI (because 75% of RPI is made up of who your opponents play and who your opponents opponents played).

Those additions also likely help every school by selling a few more tickets to a home game----AND, as mentioned by others, they bring in extra NCAA credits. So I don't agree that they "cost" money. I suspect they are revenue neutral at worst and are more likely a net plus in the revenue column.

We make so little money that it's hard to argue that any new addition is going to "cost" us much money. I mean, what's the difference between $20 million divided 12 ways and 13 ways?

But the problem i have is the knee-jerk aspect of this. Our basketball is in a slump so let's invite Hot School X!!! It's reflected in posts we see during football season, where say Western Kentucky knocks off a P5 team, and immediately we get a post saying "Aresco should invite Western Kentucky !" and a bunch of people chime in saying it's a great idea.

Wichita State has good basketball, but that can end at any time. What real enduring value does Wichita State bring? Not much I can think of.

This is not exactly knee jerk considering that we typically get 3 in the tournament. Adding WSU is more like a multiplier effect. The conference gets at least 10 more solid games with the addition of the one team. That would be a home and away with the top half of the conference.

The first financial and value play that I see is a move to add most of the MWC media contract value to the AAC.

Boise St., SDSU, Air Force, and one other (basketball school?) would likely bring over 75% of the MWC contract value to the AAC, but with just 4 additions. The existing value of the MWC contract is about $24M per year. 75% of that is $18M. The existing AAC contract has about $24M in value. If you add those 4 MWC schools, that is $42M. $42M/16 schools = $2.625M. That's a modest raise for everyone in the AAC, simply based on the existing contract values - with no adjustment for contract increase.

But now, consider that Navy inventory would be part of the contract and the synergies with Air Force, Boise St., and SDSU.

*EDIT: With AAC and Navy, plus Air Force, Boise St., and SDSU schedules, the expanded AAC would have a good chance to get 5 or 6 annual OTA games, plus the AAC CCG.

I believe the new new members would provide better exposure for the AAC and help schools attract better attendance.

From basketball perspective, I have no idea what sort of TV ratings that Wichita St., Dayton, or VCU attract.

But, I do know that Gonzaga and BYU attract decent TV ratings for college basketball. They likely make up about 75% of the value of the WCC's ESPN contract, which is about $10M per year. So, let's say Gonzaga and BYU bring an additional $7.5M to the AAC pot, but take less than a full portion - because Olympics sports only.

That is approximately $50M for the AAC, without any increase or inflation from the current ESPN contracts. Let's say Gonzaga and BYU each take $1.5M (a decent upgrade from their current bball payouts). That leaves $47M to be divided among the 16 AAC full member schools - or about $2.9375M per school.

Again, I have no idea what sort of real value that Wichita St., Dayton, or VCU could bring to the basketball side of the AAC's contract. But, I do know that those 3 would be in the upper tier for average attendance. Also, Gonzaga, BYU, VCU, Dayton, and Wichita St. would very likely help the AAC's exposure and attendance (ie, SMU's, Tulsa's, and Houston's attendance would likely improve with Wichita St., Gonzaga, and BYU on the home schedule).

NCAA tournament credits - The AAC averages 3 NCAA bids per year over the last 6 years. There have been 14 AAC wins in the last 5 years (not counting 2017), but that does includes UConn's title run. That's about 2.8 wins per year and 32 NCAA credits in the last 6 years (18 bids plus 14 wins...and counting). Roughly 6 NCAA credits per year. Each credit is worth about $300K per year (but increasing over time). So, the AAC is on track to receive roughly $1.8M per year from NCAA credits.

That about $165K per school per year from NCAA credits.

Only 5 of the AAC schools have been to the NCAA tournament more than once in the last 6 years. Only 3 (Cincinnati, UConn, and Memphis) have more than one NCAA win in the last 6 years.

If you add the 9 schools of Gonzaga, Wichita St., VCU, Dayton, SDSU, BYU, Boise St., Air Force, and one other MW:
- 6 of those schools have been to the NCAA tournament multiple times in the last 6 years, including 3 of them (Gonzaga, Wichita St., and VCU) that have made the tournament every year.
- 27 NCAA wins among that group!
- 55 NCAA credits in the 6 year span (and 2017 results still to count!).
That's over 9 NCAA additional credits per year that the new group could bring to the AAC.
So, if the expanded AAC were able to increase its annual NCAA credits to about 15 per year, that's $4.5M to the conference each year. And, the pro rata payout would grow to $225K per team per year.

I know that doesn't sound like much, but just from the financial perspective, you could see the pro rata payout for full members jump from $2.165M per year to over $3M, without accounting for increase in the existing base value of the current AAC media deal or inflation of NCAA credits.

It also doesn't account for the massive increase in prestige and exposure for the conference and the improvement in attendance, ticket sales, recruiting, and other synergies that would come out of the new affiliation.

Attendance:

Boise St., AFA, and SDSU have averaged over 30K per game attendance in football.

BYU, Wichita St., Dayton, and SDSU average over 10K in basketball. Boise St. and Gonzaga average over 6K.

These attendance levels support the "AAC is P6" narrative.

From an attendance perspective, the best other western schools to consider for the final spot are:

Fresno State (30K football, 6K basketball)
New Mexico (25K football, 13K basketball)
Colorado St. (25K football - and new 40K stadium - 4K basketball)
Hawaii (25K football, 7k basketball)
UNLV (20K football - new NFL stadium? - 12K basketball)
UTEP (25K football, 7K basketball)
Utah St. (22K football, 8.5K basketball)

(03-15-2017 12:24 PM)YNot Wrote:  NCAA tournament credits - The AAC averages 3 NCAA bids per year over the last 6 years. There have been 14 AAC wins in the last 5 years (not counting 2017), but that does includes UConn's title run. That's about 2.8 wins per year and 32 NCAA credits in the last 6 years (18 bids plus 14 wins...and counting). Roughly 6 NCAA credits per year. Each credit is worth about $300K per year (but increasing over time). So, the AAC is on track to receive roughly $1.8M per year from NCAA credits.

That about $165K per school per year from NCAA credits.

Only 5 of the AAC schools have been to the NCAA tournament more than once in the last 6 years. Only 3 (Cincinnati, UConn, and Memphis) have more than one NCAA win in the last 6 years.

If you add the 9 schools of Gonzaga, Wichita St., VCU, Dayton, SDSU, BYU, Boise St., Air Force, and one other MW:
- 6 of those schools have been to the NCAA tournament multiple times in the last 6 years, including 3 of them (Gonzaga, Wichita St., and VCU) that have made the tournament every year.
- 27 NCAA wins among that group!
- 55 NCAA credits in the 6 year span (and 2017 results still to count!).
That's over 9 NCAA additional credits per year that the new group could bring to the AAC.
So, if the expanded AAC were able to increase its annual NCAA credits to about 15 per year, that's $4.5M to the conference each year. And, the pro rata payout would grow to $225K per team per year.

I know that doesn't sound like much, but just from the financial perspective, you could see the pro rata payout for full members jump from $2.165M per year to over $3M, without accounting for increase in the existing base value of the current AAC media deal or inflation of NCAA credits.

It also doesn't account for the massive increase in prestige and exposure for the conference and the improvement in attendance, ticket sales, recruiting, and other synergies that would come out of the new affiliation.

Add Air Force basketball to the AAC? Why?? You BYU fans may hate the MWC, but you sure do love the schools that are in the MWC.
Cheers!

(03-15-2017 12:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Add Air Force basketball to the AAC? Why?? You BYU fans may hate the MWC, but you sure do love the schools that are in the MWC.
Cheers!

I would prefer not to play AFA basketball ever again. But, AFA is a great add to AAC football and their Olympic sports need a home.

And, if it helps the AAC add Gonzaga, BYU, SDSU, and Wichita St. basketball.....what's the big deal about adding an easy win to the schedule for half the conference?

(03-15-2017 01:04 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 12:46 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Add Air Force basketball to the AAC? Why?? You BYU fans may hate the MWC, but you sure do love the schools that are in the MWC.
Cheers!

I would prefer not to play AFA basketball ever again. But, AFA is a great add to AAC football and their Olympic sports need a home.

And, if it helps the AAC add Gonzaga, BYU, SDSU, and Wichita St. basketball.....what's the big deal about adding an easy win to the schedule for half the conference?

The reason why WSU is a great ni brain add is geography there are almost no negatives to adding the shockers. They are in the conference footprint, come with great support, a proven track record and no football to fill in for Navy as a football only.

Adding the western schools pulls this league apart and stretchs both time zones, cultures, and conference identity. The eastern schools mentiined also tighten up our geography, but dont fit as nicely to match Navy's western division football only.

I expect WSU to get the invite.

Dayton/VCU maybe and would probably create a stable conference for many years even if some teams leave with the next conference realignment. Depends though as there are a lot of ifs with these two (or St. Louis), but could be many positives.

BYU, if they want all sports we'll take them and figure out how to sort it later, also means another football add somewhere.

SDSU, Gonzaga, St. Mary, any school other than BYU west of the moutains is a never. It wont happen too many ifs, not enough positive possibilities, more instability within the league.

So long story short, I think WSU is in and give Dayton and VCU a serious look.

(03-13-2017 10:24 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:35 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  How long ago was that quote? Things change quickly. Getting hoops better has no impact on football.

It also has no impact on the current and future TV deal. So why are we advocating adding more mouths to feed for zero additional dollars again?

You act as if the money is coming out of your pocket. Further, you act as if the theoretical new members would get full shares. If basketball is valued at 30% of the contact, each of the 11 full members would still get 93% of what they get today.

Plus, I would guess that (93%) + (entrance fees) + ( increased tournament revenue) + ( increased ticket sales) > what you get now.