(01-09-2018 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The better play is for AAC teams to find a way to schedule more mediocre to mid-tier P5 schools. An OOC schedule that consists of Rutgers, Vandy and BC looks better to voters than San Diego State, Marshall and Toledo (even though on the field the former are better than the later).

Sounds good but what incentive is there for Rutgers or Vandy or BC to mess with it more than once in a while to fill a hole in a schedule? They don't need to take a buy game since they are flush with conference cash. They don't need a schedule bump since they are getting ground down in the top 3 conferences in the sport. They can already offer to buy games to whomever they want from the bottom half of FBS or anyone in FCS.

The more reasonable play (one that is perhaps more feasible) may be to get together with the Toledo's and Troy's and Marshal's of the world to hammer out long term agreements that are mutually beneficial and compliment the P5 opportunities. Perhaps then you can get rid of the FCS game on a more regular basis.

(01-09-2018 01:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The better play is for AAC teams to find a way to schedule more mediocre to mid-tier P5 schools. An OOC schedule that consists of Rutgers, Vandy and BC looks better to voters than San Diego State, Marshall and Toledo (even though on the field the former are better than the later).

Sounds good but what incentive is there for Rutgers or Vandy or BC to mess with it more than once in a while to fill a hole in a schedule? They don't need to take a buy game since they are flush with conference cash. They don't need a schedule bump since they are getting ground down in the top 3 conferences in the sport. They can already offer to buy games to whomever they want from the bottom half of FBS or anyone in FCS.

The more reasonable play (one that is perhaps more feasible) may be to get together with the Toledo's and Troy's and Marshal's of the world to hammer out long term agreements that are mutually beneficial and compliment the P5 opportunities. Perhaps then you can get rid of the FCS game on a more regular basis.

The one thing that UC has to bargain with is...and I'm not sure how I feel about this...is the Ohio recruiting area. Why is UCLA coming into play at Nippert? And why would Ohio State never agree to do so? UCLA is, in some part, looking at playing in Cincinnati as a chance to extend their brand and their recruiting into the area. Ohio State already covers the area, so there is absolutely no incentive for them to ever come back and play UC in Cincinnati...whether at PBS or Nippert. What is even sadder, is that OSU could just as well schedule in a "Neutral Site" game at PBS if they ever feel threatened about losing an edge in the Cincinnati area.

So, looking at the list suggested, which of the "Lower tier Power 5" schools would have a vested interest in coming into Cincinnati? The first I would look at is Boston College; BC used to recruit heavily out of the UC Catholic schools, but since Kuechly I haven't heard many big names going to BC. UC could well get BC in for a game at Nippert.

I can't see Vandy or Rutgers being especially interested, though. Vandy simply has no reason to come to Cincinnati...they don't recruit out of here and their fan base isn't ever going to have a significant presence here (and whatever alumni they have in Cincinnati can drive into Lexington...). Rutgers remembers all too well UC owning them; and likewise they don't recruit in the area and any alumni in the area can drive to C'bus to see them play.

But others? Purdue...maybe. Illinois? Definitely. Michigan State? Maybe. Northwestern? Maybe. I'm sure there are others; following the UCLA motif of "extending brand" I would wonder about Arizona State or even a Colorado (Both out of the PAC 12). Either of those two schools might make for a compelling TV match up (across time-zones) and would be major cross-market reaches for those two programs. Especially if you could work a FB/BB type deal like we have worked with Michigan (though they bought the BB side of the series out) and UCLA.

I'm sure Bohn is thinking of this, FWIW... You just have to figure the angles out: what is the "carrot" that would induce a school to come and play at Cincinnati? They usually won't do these things "just because," they usually have a compelling self-interest to do it.

(01-09-2018 02:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The better play is for AAC teams to find a way to schedule more mediocre to mid-tier P5 schools. An OOC schedule that consists of Rutgers, Vandy and BC looks better to voters than San Diego State, Marshall and Toledo (even though on the field the former are better than the later).

Sounds good but what incentive is there for Rutgers or Vandy or BC to mess with it more than once in a while to fill a hole in a schedule? They don't need to take a buy game since they are flush with conference cash. They don't need a schedule bump since they are getting ground down in the top 3 conferences in the sport. They can already offer to buy games to whomever they want from the bottom half of FBS or anyone in FCS.

The more reasonable play (one that is perhaps more feasible) may be to get together with the Toledo's and Troy's and Marshal's of the world to hammer out long term agreements that are mutually beneficial and compliment the P5 opportunities. Perhaps then you can get rid of the FCS game on a more regular basis.

The one thing that UC has to bargain with is...and I'm not sure how I feel about this...is the Ohio recruiting area. Why is UCLA coming into play at Nippert? And why would Ohio State never agree to do so? UCLA is, in some part, looking at playing in Cincinnati as a chance to extend their brand and their recruiting into the area. Ohio State already covers the area, so there is absolutely no incentive for them to ever come back and play UC in Cincinnati...whether at PBS or Nippert. What is even sadder, is that OSU could just as well schedule in a "Neutral Site" game at PBS if they ever feel threatened about losing an edge in the Cincinnati area.

So, looking at the list suggested, which of the "Lower tier Power 5" schools would have a vested interest in coming into Cincinnati? The first I would look at is Boston College; BC used to recruit heavily out of the UC Catholic schools, but since Kuechly I haven't heard many big names going to BC. UC could well get BC in for a game at Nippert.

I can't see Vandy or Rutgers being especially interested, though. Vandy simply has no reason to come to Cincinnati...they don't recruit out of here and their fan base isn't ever going to have a significant presence here (and whatever alumni they have in Cincinnati can drive into Lexington...). Rutgers remembers all too well UC owning them; and likewise they don't recruit in the area and any alumni in the area can drive to C'bus to see them play.

But others? Purdue...maybe. Illinois? Definitely. Michigan State? Maybe. Northwestern? Maybe. I'm sure there are others; following the UCLA motif of "extending brand" I would wonder about Arizona State or even a Colorado (Both out of the PAC 12). Either of those two schools might make for a compelling TV match up (across time-zones) and would be major cross-market reaches for those two programs. Especially if you could work a FB/BB type deal like we have worked with Michigan (though they bought the BB side of the series out) and UCLA.

I'm sure Bohn is thinking of this, FWIW... You just have to figure the angles out: what is the "carrot" that would induce a school to come and play at Cincinnati? They usually won't do these things "just because," they usually have a compelling self-interest to do it.

If UC ever improved into perennial elite G5 team, it could affect OSU slightly and UK and UL (more so), so whoever would be the beneficiary of these schools being taken down a notch may find it in their interest to prop up UC by playing them. Maybe a P12 or B12 team, but I could be reaching.

We have scheduled home and home:

UCLA
NB
IU
PITT
BOISE

You have to have P5'ers that are willing.

Not to mention we have a H&H with OU coming up and another with Marshall and just came off of ones with Miami (FL) and Purdue.

Looking at the scheduling in the future, I think we're setting a pretty good base layer of match ups. Hopefully we can avoid scheduling FCS teams ourselves. We won't have one next year, unless we get bought out by OSU.

(01-09-2018 03:09 PM)djtothemoney Wrote:  Not to mention we have a H&H with OU coming up and another with Marshall and just came off of ones with Miami (FL) and Purdue.

Looking at the scheduling in the future, I think we're setting a pretty good base layer of match ups. Hopefully we can avoid scheduling FCS teams ourselves. We won't have one next year, unless we get bought out by OSU.

No way O$U buys out this game. If we had won 7-8 games last season, I'd give it a 50-50 chance, but OSU will want us when they perceive us as being vulnerable.

(01-09-2018 03:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 03:09 PM)djtothemoney Wrote:  Not to mention we have a H&H with OU coming up and another with Marshall and just came off of ones with Miami (FL) and Purdue.

Looking at the scheduling in the future, I think we're setting a pretty good base layer of match ups. Hopefully we can avoid scheduling FCS teams ourselves. We won't have one next year, unless we get bought out by OSU.

No way O$U buys out this game. If we had won 7-8 games last season, I'd give it a 50-50 chance, but OSU will want us when they perceive us as being vulnerable.

With the talent we're bringing in, they're playing with fire assuming we won't be at least a dangerous matchup for them in 2019.

(01-09-2018 04:39 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 03:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 03:09 PM)djtothemoney Wrote:  Not to mention we have a H&H with OU coming up and another with Marshall and just came off of ones with Miami (FL) and Purdue.

Looking at the scheduling in the future, I think we're setting a pretty good base layer of match ups. Hopefully we can avoid scheduling FCS teams ourselves. We won't have one next year, unless we get bought out by OSU.

No way O$U buys out this game. If we had won 7-8 games last season, I'd give it a 50-50 chance, but OSU will want us when they perceive us as being vulnerable.

With the talent we're bringing in, they're playing with fire assuming we won't be at least a dangerous matchup for them in 2019.

Oh, I agree... And if we show a marked improvement this season, all bets are off.

(01-09-2018 02:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The better play is for AAC teams to find a way to schedule more mediocre to mid-tier P5 schools. An OOC schedule that consists of Rutgers, Vandy and BC looks better to voters than San Diego State, Marshall and Toledo (even though on the field the former are better than the later).

Sounds good but what incentive is there for Rutgers or Vandy or BC to mess with it more than once in a while to fill a hole in a schedule? They don't need to take a buy game since they are flush with conference cash. They don't need a schedule bump since they are getting ground down in the top 3 conferences in the sport. They can already offer to buy games to whomever they want from the bottom half of FBS or anyone in FCS.

The more reasonable play (one that is perhaps more feasible) may be to get together with the Toledo's and Troy's and Marshal's of the world to hammer out long term agreements that are mutually beneficial and compliment the P5 opportunities. Perhaps then you can get rid of the FCS game on a more regular basis.

The one thing that UC has to bargain with is...and I'm not sure how I feel about this...is the Ohio recruiting area. Why is UCLA coming into play at Nippert? And why would Ohio State never agree to do so? UCLA is, in some part, looking at playing in Cincinnati as a chance to extend their brand and their recruiting into the area. Ohio State already covers the area, so there is absolutely no incentive for them to ever come back and play UC in Cincinnati...whether at PBS or Nippert. What is even sadder, is that OSU could just as well schedule in a "Neutral Site" game at PBS if they ever feel threatened about losing an edge in the Cincinnati area.

So, looking at the list suggested, which of the "Lower tier Power 5" schools would have a vested interest in coming into Cincinnati? The first I would look at is Boston College; BC used to recruit heavily out of the UC Catholic schools, but since Kuechly I haven't heard many big names going to BC. UC could well get BC in for a game at Nippert.

I can't see Vandy or Rutgers being especially interested, though. Vandy simply has no reason to come to Cincinnati...they don't recruit out of here and their fan base isn't ever going to have a significant presence here (and whatever alumni they have in Cincinnati can drive into Lexington...). Rutgers remembers all too well UC owning them; and likewise they don't recruit in the area and any alumni in the area can drive to C'bus to see them play.

But others? Purdue...maybe. Illinois? Definitely. Michigan State? Maybe. Northwestern? Maybe. I'm sure there are others; following the UCLA motif of "extending brand" I would wonder about Arizona State or even a Colorado (Both out of the PAC 12). Either of those two schools might make for a compelling TV match up (across time-zones) and would be major cross-market reaches for those two programs. Especially if you could work a FB/BB type deal like we have worked with Michigan (though they bought the BB side of the series out) and UCLA.

I'm sure Bohn is thinking of this, FWIW... You just have to figure the angles out: what is the "carrot" that would induce a school to come and play at Cincinnati? They usually won't do these things "just because," they usually have a compelling self-interest to do it.

Excellent summary and I'm intrigued by PAC 12 options. One could argue there is "need" on their part with the weakest TV deal in the P5 and being geographically partitioned off by the Rockies. UC should pursue these schools for a football series and the AAC should pursue, even if limited in scope, a PAC 12/AAC Challenge for the top 2-3 basketball programs from each conference. I think the PAC teams would welcome the recruiting exposure in places such as Texas, Ohio and the northeast along with ESPN primetime in the Eastern and Central time zones where schools such as UCLA and Arizona are seen infrequently.

(01-09-2018 05:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 02:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The better play is for AAC teams to find a way to schedule more mediocre to mid-tier P5 schools. An OOC schedule that consists of Rutgers, Vandy and BC looks better to voters than San Diego State, Marshall and Toledo (even though on the field the former are better than the later).

Sounds good but what incentive is there for Rutgers or Vandy or BC to mess with it more than once in a while to fill a hole in a schedule? They don't need to take a buy game since they are flush with conference cash. They don't need a schedule bump since they are getting ground down in the top 3 conferences in the sport. They can already offer to buy games to whomever they want from the bottom half of FBS or anyone in FCS.

The more reasonable play (one that is perhaps more feasible) may be to get together with the Toledo's and Troy's and Marshal's of the world to hammer out long term agreements that are mutually beneficial and compliment the P5 opportunities. Perhaps then you can get rid of the FCS game on a more regular basis.

The one thing that UC has to bargain with is...and I'm not sure how I feel about this...is the Ohio recruiting area. Why is UCLA coming into play at Nippert? And why would Ohio State never agree to do so? UCLA is, in some part, looking at playing in Cincinnati as a chance to extend their brand and their recruiting into the area. Ohio State already covers the area, so there is absolutely no incentive for them to ever come back and play UC in Cincinnati...whether at PBS or Nippert. What is even sadder, is that OSU could just as well schedule in a "Neutral Site" game at PBS if they ever feel threatened about losing an edge in the Cincinnati area.

So, looking at the list suggested, which of the "Lower tier Power 5" schools would have a vested interest in coming into Cincinnati? The first I would look at is Boston College; BC used to recruit heavily out of the UC Catholic schools, but since Kuechly I haven't heard many big names going to BC. UC could well get BC in for a game at Nippert.

I can't see Vandy or Rutgers being especially interested, though. Vandy simply has no reason to come to Cincinnati...they don't recruit out of here and their fan base isn't ever going to have a significant presence here (and whatever alumni they have in Cincinnati can drive into Lexington...). Rutgers remembers all too well UC owning them; and likewise they don't recruit in the area and any alumni in the area can drive to C'bus to see them play.

But others? Purdue...maybe. Illinois? Definitely. Michigan State? Maybe. Northwestern? Maybe. I'm sure there are others; following the UCLA motif of "extending brand" I would wonder about Arizona State or even a Colorado (Both out of the PAC 12). Either of those two schools might make for a compelling TV match up (across time-zones) and would be major cross-market reaches for those two programs. Especially if you could work a FB/BB type deal like we have worked with Michigan (though they bought the BB side of the series out) and UCLA.

I'm sure Bohn is thinking of this, FWIW... You just have to figure the angles out: what is the "carrot" that would induce a school to come and play at Cincinnati? They usually won't do these things "just because," they usually have a compelling self-interest to do it.

Excellent summary and I'm intrigued by PAC 12 options. One could argue there is "need" on their part with the weakest TV deal in the P5 and being geographically partitioned off by the Rockies. UC should pursue these schools for a football series and the AAC should pursue, even if limited in scope, a PAC 12/AAC Challenge for the top 2-3 basketball programs from each conference. I think the PAC teams would welcome the recruiting exposure in places such as Texas, Ohio and the northeast along with ESPN primetime in the Eastern and Central time zones where schools such as UCLA and Arizona are seen infrequently.

I know the "natural" thing a lot of us...and AAC fans in general...want is an "AAC/Big East" challenge (in BB). But the BE has every reason NOT to engage with the AAC on a whole level. Then, naturally, there is a "want" for most of us to want an "AAC-ACC" challenge; but the ACC already has a couple of challenges.

The PAC 12 really is the place we should be looking. First, there is no organic threat between the two conferences, so there is low-risk on both parts. Secondly, the intersection between the time-zones lends itself for a spread of games (half-sies/shared hosting). Finally, especially if it's worked as a multiple-sports deal, you can work some serious tension into the thing. Such a "conference challenge" would work for FB, BB, and baseball.

That being said, it probably won't happen.

(01-09-2018 06:32 AM)jarr Wrote:  Trying to think of ways for G5 teams to get more quality wins. I am not in favor of the G5 playoff system in lieu of bowl games like some have suggested, because that pretty much admits defeat.

What if G5 conferences somehow shortened their season, and played their championship games a week earlier. Then the 2 highest rated G5 schools from separate conferences played each other for a G5 championship game. Giving an opportunity for another quality win for a school like UCF.

This year that would put UCF vs. Boise. I'm not saying this would be the answer, but could continue to help their chances. I think UCF biggest fallback was lack of quality wins in the P5. If they would have had a high quality win against a P5 school, say like a Miss. State, and then throw in a win like Boise, and being undefeated would have gotten them in.

No

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-09-2018 12:23 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  People will continue to schedule FCS teams because they need the extra guaranteed home game for revenue. G5 schools are living on credit cards and student subsidies. This entire system for the have nots is unsustainable.

yup

that's why the majority of the G5 teams are headed for the new FCS.....G5 football is dying a slow painful death

(01-09-2018 10:30 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 12:23 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  People will continue to schedule FCS teams because they need the extra guaranteed home game for revenue. G5 schools are living on credit cards and student subsidies. This entire system for the have nots is unsustainable.

yup

that's why the majority of the G5 teams are headed for the new FCS.....G5 football is dying a slow painful death

Yes

(01-09-2018 05:35 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 05:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 02:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The better play is for AAC teams to find a way to schedule more mediocre to mid-tier P5 schools. An OOC schedule that consists of Rutgers, Vandy and BC looks better to voters than San Diego State, Marshall and Toledo (even though on the field the former are better than the later).

Sounds good but what incentive is there for Rutgers or Vandy or BC to mess with it more than once in a while to fill a hole in a schedule? They don't need to take a buy game since they are flush with conference cash. They don't need a schedule bump since they are getting ground down in the top 3 conferences in the sport. They can already offer to buy games to whomever they want from the bottom half of FBS or anyone in FCS.

The more reasonable play (one that is perhaps more feasible) may be to get together with the Toledo's and Troy's and Marshal's of the world to hammer out long term agreements that are mutually beneficial and compliment the P5 opportunities. Perhaps then you can get rid of the FCS game on a more regular basis.

The one thing that UC has to bargain with is...and I'm not sure how I feel about this...is the Ohio recruiting area. Why is UCLA coming into play at Nippert? And why would Ohio State never agree to do so? UCLA is, in some part, looking at playing in Cincinnati as a chance to extend their brand and their recruiting into the area. Ohio State already covers the area, so there is absolutely no incentive for them to ever come back and play UC in Cincinnati...whether at PBS or Nippert. What is even sadder, is that OSU could just as well schedule in a "Neutral Site" game at PBS if they ever feel threatened about losing an edge in the Cincinnati area.

So, looking at the list suggested, which of the "Lower tier Power 5" schools would have a vested interest in coming into Cincinnati? The first I would look at is Boston College; BC used to recruit heavily out of the UC Catholic schools, but since Kuechly I haven't heard many big names going to BC. UC could well get BC in for a game at Nippert.

I can't see Vandy or Rutgers being especially interested, though. Vandy simply has no reason to come to Cincinnati...they don't recruit out of here and their fan base isn't ever going to have a significant presence here (and whatever alumni they have in Cincinnati can drive into Lexington...). Rutgers remembers all too well UC owning them; and likewise they don't recruit in the area and any alumni in the area can drive to C'bus to see them play.

But others? Purdue...maybe. Illinois? Definitely. Michigan State? Maybe. Northwestern? Maybe. I'm sure there are others; following the UCLA motif of "extending brand" I would wonder about Arizona State or even a Colorado (Both out of the PAC 12). Either of those two schools might make for a compelling TV match up (across time-zones) and would be major cross-market reaches for those two programs. Especially if you could work a FB/BB type deal like we have worked with Michigan (though they bought the BB side of the series out) and UCLA.

I'm sure Bohn is thinking of this, FWIW... You just have to figure the angles out: what is the "carrot" that would induce a school to come and play at Cincinnati? They usually won't do these things "just because," they usually have a compelling self-interest to do it.

Excellent summary and I'm intrigued by PAC 12 options. One could argue there is "need" on their part with the weakest TV deal in the P5 and being geographically partitioned off by the Rockies. UC should pursue these schools for a football series and the AAC should pursue, even if limited in scope, a PAC 12/AAC Challenge for the top 2-3 basketball programs from each conference. I think the PAC teams would welcome the recruiting exposure in places such as Texas, Ohio and the northeast along with ESPN primetime in the Eastern and Central time zones where schools such as UCLA and Arizona are seen infrequently.

I know the "natural" thing a lot of us...and AAC fans in general...want is an "AAC/Big East" challenge (in BB). But the BE has every reason NOT to engage with the AAC on a whole level. Then, naturally, there is a "want" for most of us to want an "AAC-ACC" challenge; but the ACC already has a couple of challenges.

The PAC 12 really is the place we should be looking. First, there is no organic threat between the two conferences, so there is low-risk on both parts. Secondly, the intersection between the time-zones lends itself for a spread of games (half-sies/shared hosting). Finally, especially if it's worked as a multiple-sports deal, you can work some serious tension into the thing. Such a "conference challenge" would work for FB, BB, and baseball.

That being said, it probably won't happen.

Nice idea, but the PAC will never go for it. No P5 is going to schedule a challenge series with a G5 solely for image and branding reasons. Do you really think the Commissioner's Office and ADs in the PAC are going to allow the optics of having a challenge series with a G5 while other P5s are doing it with other P5s.

(01-11-2018 09:03 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 05:35 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 05:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 02:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Sounds good but what incentive is there for Rutgers or Vandy or BC to mess with it more than once in a while to fill a hole in a schedule? They don't need to take a buy game since they are flush with conference cash. They don't need a schedule bump since they are getting ground down in the top 3 conferences in the sport. They can already offer to buy games to whomever they want from the bottom half of FBS or anyone in FCS.

The more reasonable play (one that is perhaps more feasible) may be to get together with the Toledo's and Troy's and Marshal's of the world to hammer out long term agreements that are mutually beneficial and compliment the P5 opportunities. Perhaps then you can get rid of the FCS game on a more regular basis.

The one thing that UC has to bargain with is...and I'm not sure how I feel about this...is the Ohio recruiting area. Why is UCLA coming into play at Nippert? And why would Ohio State never agree to do so? UCLA is, in some part, looking at playing in Cincinnati as a chance to extend their brand and their recruiting into the area. Ohio State already covers the area, so there is absolutely no incentive for them to ever come back and play UC in Cincinnati...whether at PBS or Nippert. What is even sadder, is that OSU could just as well schedule in a "Neutral Site" game at PBS if they ever feel threatened about losing an edge in the Cincinnati area.

So, looking at the list suggested, which of the "Lower tier Power 5" schools would have a vested interest in coming into Cincinnati? The first I would look at is Boston College; BC used to recruit heavily out of the UC Catholic schools, but since Kuechly I haven't heard many big names going to BC. UC could well get BC in for a game at Nippert.

I can't see Vandy or Rutgers being especially interested, though. Vandy simply has no reason to come to Cincinnati...they don't recruit out of here and their fan base isn't ever going to have a significant presence here (and whatever alumni they have in Cincinnati can drive into Lexington...). Rutgers remembers all too well UC owning them; and likewise they don't recruit in the area and any alumni in the area can drive to C'bus to see them play.

But others? Purdue...maybe. Illinois? Definitely. Michigan State? Maybe. Northwestern? Maybe. I'm sure there are others; following the UCLA motif of "extending brand" I would wonder about Arizona State or even a Colorado (Both out of the PAC 12). Either of those two schools might make for a compelling TV match up (across time-zones) and would be major cross-market reaches for those two programs. Especially if you could work a FB/BB type deal like we have worked with Michigan (though they bought the BB side of the series out) and UCLA.

I'm sure Bohn is thinking of this, FWIW... You just have to figure the angles out: what is the "carrot" that would induce a school to come and play at Cincinnati? They usually won't do these things "just because," they usually have a compelling self-interest to do it.

Excellent summary and I'm intrigued by PAC 12 options. One could argue there is "need" on their part with the weakest TV deal in the P5 and being geographically partitioned off by the Rockies. UC should pursue these schools for a football series and the AAC should pursue, even if limited in scope, a PAC 12/AAC Challenge for the top 2-3 basketball programs from each conference. I think the PAC teams would welcome the recruiting exposure in places such as Texas, Ohio and the northeast along with ESPN primetime in the Eastern and Central time zones where schools such as UCLA and Arizona are seen infrequently.

I know the "natural" thing a lot of us...and AAC fans in general...want is an "AAC/Big East" challenge (in BB). But the BE has every reason NOT to engage with the AAC on a whole level. Then, naturally, there is a "want" for most of us to want an "AAC-ACC" challenge; but the ACC already has a couple of challenges.

The PAC 12 really is the place we should be looking. First, there is no organic threat between the two conferences, so there is low-risk on both parts. Secondly, the intersection between the time-zones lends itself for a spread of games (half-sies/shared hosting). Finally, especially if it's worked as a multiple-sports deal, you can work some serious tension into the thing. Such a "conference challenge" would work for FB, BB, and baseball.

That being said, it probably won't happen.

Nice idea, but the PAC will never go for it. No P5 is going to schedule a challenge series with a G5 solely for image and branding reasons. Do you really think the Commissioner's Office and ADs in the PAC are going to allow the optics of having a challenge series with a G5 while other P5s are doing it with other P5s.

Probably true.

(01-09-2018 12:23 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  People will continue to schedule FCS teams because they need the extra guaranteed home game for revenue. G5 schools are living on credit cards and student subsidies. This entire system for the have nots is unsustainable.

The subsidies/student fees issue is going to come to head and probably sooner rather than later. Virginia's legislature has already stepped in and established a cap on what percentage of an AD's budget can be funded through subsidies. I expect other state legislatures to start taking it up soon. At any Ohio FBS school not named OSU, the subsidy is roughly 10% of an in-state student's tuition.

^^ I could see a mini-Challenge, worded as a scheduling alliance between the top 5-6 brands in the AAC and the PAC12 in hoops. They don't want to play the ECU's and USF basketball programs, but I could easily see them being interested in UC, Wichita, SMU, Houston, UConn, Memphis and Temple.

Example:
UC-UCLA (already happened)
Arizona-Wichita State
Houston-Oregon
SMU-Arizona State
Memphis-USC
UConn-Stanford
Temple-Colorado

The American is trying its best not to be grouped with other minor conferences. Lets rule out the followingL

1. G5 Playoff
2 G5 Championship game

Also, the American is going advocate against playoff expansion until the other power conferences lead the way. Ideal situation for the American would be to get a larger TV deal and semi-major bowl game for its champion. Doing these things makes the American different than the other G5 league. The last part of the puzzle is expansion. I believe you can clearly become a Power 6 conference if you go west and gut the MWC and WCC. Add Boise State, SDSU, Colorado State, and UNLV for all sports. BYU and Gonzaga for all sports but football (assuming BYU still does to wants to stay indy in football).

Football:
West: SDSU, Boise State, Colorado, State, UNLV, Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane
East: Cincinnati, UConn, Temple, Navy, Memphis, ECU, USF, UCF

Basketball and other Olympic sports:
West: SDSU, Boise State, Colorado State, UNLV, Gonzaga, BYU
Central: Houston, SMU, Wichita State, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane
East: Cincinnati, UConn, Temple, UCF, USF, ECU

This group above would so far ahead of the other minor conferences that it would hard this league not have better bowl games, more TV money, and a boat load of NCAA tournament credits.