A funny way to "tamp down" speculation, by admitting there is "a chance" to go to 12.

Mike "Pretty Much" Aresco in a new Cincinnati article:

"I can't speak to the waiver (to continue playing a conference title game with fewer than 12 teams) because we're about to file it, so I don't want to get into the nuances of that, but I have talked about why and defend the need for it. There's a lot of good reasons for it, but we have pretty much decided that we want to stay at 11. There's a chance there could be a team out there, but that's not what we're doing and I wanted to tamp down any speculation about 12 teams.

(09-04-2019 09:41 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  A funny way to "tamp down" speculation, by admitting there is "a chance" to go to 12.

Mike "Pretty Much" Aresco in a new Cincinnati article:

"I can't speak to the waiver (to continue playing a conference title game with fewer than 12 teams) because we're about to file it, so I don't want to get into the nuances of that, but I have talked about why and defend the need for it. There's a lot of good reasons for it, but we have pretty much decided that we want to stay at 11. There's a chance there could be a team out there, but that's not what we're doing and I wanted to tamp down any speculation about 12 teams.

There was always a chance, if the AAC doesn't get the waiver and/or rule change to have a championship game with 11 teams without playing 10 conference games then 12 teams it si.

If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

I'd take Buffalo over either of those 2 in a heartbeat and so will the University Presidents.

(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

I'd take Buffalo over either of those 2 in a heartbeat and so will the University Presidents.

NO

(09-05-2019 08:14 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest and no academic comparison to Buffalo.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

I'd take Buffalo over either of those 2 in a heartbeat and so will the University Presidents.

NO

New Mexico is like UMass!!! Colorado State is very much like Buffalo with a shiny new stadium.

Why don't you enlighten me of what the difference is between Mew Mexico and UMass... UMass can always build the facilities but New Mexico can never change its location.

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

If the conference does't want a northeast team then SDSU (Football only) is the best bet. But I dont think the conference is too eager in adding football anly members, with very, very few exceptions.

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

Huh? Aresco has said many times we don't plan to expand. I don't understand how you are interpreting what he said this last time as anything different. IMO, it isn't.

We are not expanding. We are getting the waiver, or we will keep divisions and play an unbalanced schedule.

I heard Colo State applied as soon as UConn announced it was leaving. We apparently don't plan to add them, though. Nothing seems to have changed.

And yes, if BYU or Army was interested, we would likely add them. Aresco has said this before. Boise, I doubt it, and Air Force, I have no idea, but perhaps so.

But, none of those apparently have expressed any interest, so no expansion.

(09-05-2019 08:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Huh? Aresco has said many times we don't plan to expand.

Precisely.

We are applying for a waiver to play a CCG without divisions and without a full round robin. Failing that, we know we can get a waiver to play a CCG with unbalanced divisions because the MAC did.

Aresco initially said we would talk to anybody that called us. Then he became pretty adamant that we are staying at 11 and filing for a waiver. This has been the party line for months.

Now, despite the knowledge that the CCG is safe either divisionless or division-unbalanced, he mentions the possibility of going to 12.

That should make you go "Huh?"!

(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  I'd take Buffalo over either of those 2 in a heartbeat and so will the University Presidents.

Why? Because you want a NE replacement for UConn?

Buffalo generated $3M in ticket sales and alumni donations in 2018 per USA Today. That doesn't cut it.

What we got right with the Wichita addition is strong fan support, and Buffalo doesn't have it.

New Mexico's fan base generates $11M - $17M per year in ticket purchases and donations. About the same as UConn.

UMass is at $3.5M. Your comparison of New Mexico to UMass is inapt.

(09-05-2019 08:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

Huh? Aresco has said many times we don't plan to expand. I don't understand how you are interpreting what he said this last time as anything different. IMO, it isn't.

We are not expanding. We are getting the waiver, or we will keep divisions and play an unbalanced schedule.

I heard Colo State applied as soon as UConn announced it was leaving. We apparently don't plan to add them, though. Nothing seems to have changed.

And yes, if BYU or Army was interested, we would likely add them. Aresco has said this before. Boise, I doubt it, and Air Force, I have no idea, but perhaps so.

But, none of those apparently have expressed any interest, so no expansion.

I know Aresco has said we are staying put on 11. I don't even disagree that is a bad idea (depending what ESPN does). But just because he keeps saying it doesn't make it true. He has options and leverage. He can wait and see if the wavier pans out. He has teams wanting to get in (may or may not be worth inviting). But no one shows their hand this early unless they are not that bright. I would not be surprised if 12 is an option with a CSU or SD type school, but I doubt it is the first option.

(09-05-2019 04:47 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

Huh? Aresco has said many times we don't plan to expand. I don't understand how you are interpreting what he said this last time as anything different. IMO, it isn't.

We are not expanding. We are getting the waiver, or we will keep divisions and play an unbalanced schedule.

I heard Colo State applied as soon as UConn announced it was leaving. We apparently don't plan to add them, though. Nothing seems to have changed.

And yes, if BYU or Army was interested, we would likely add them. Aresco has said this before. Boise, I doubt it, and Air Force, I have no idea, but perhaps so.

But, none of those apparently have expressed any interest, so no expansion.

I know Aresco has said we are staying put on 11. I don't even disagree that is a bad idea (depending what ESPN does). But just because he keeps saying it doesn't make it true. He has options and leverage. He can wait and see if the wavier pans out. He has teams wanting to get in (may or may not be worth inviting). But no one shows their hand this early unless they are not that bright. I would not be surprised if 12 is an option with a CSU or SD type school, but I doubt it is the first option.

Maybe so. But that wasn't my point at all. I simply disagree with the OP's contention that what Aresco said makes it more likely that we add somebody. Not IMO.

The only slam dunk in this expansion fiasco is BYU.

Many of you in love with Army or any other nonsense mwc member is beyond ridiculous.

If the tv revenue doesn't drop minus uconn than is a no brainer staying put at 11 is best for everyone $$$ in this league.

(09-05-2019 08:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

Huh? Aresco has said many times we don't plan to expand. I don't understand how you are interpreting what he said this last time as anything different. IMO, it isn't.

We are not expanding. We are getting the waiver, or we will keep divisions and play an unbalanced schedule.

I heard Colo State applied as soon as UConn announced it was leaving. We apparently don't plan to add them, though. Nothing seems to have changed.

And yes, if BYU or Army was interested, we would likely add them. Aresco has said this before. Boise, I doubt it, and Air Force, I have no idea, but perhaps so.

But, none of those apparently have expressed any interest, so no expansion.

Source?

(09-05-2019 06:03 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

Huh? Aresco has said many times we don't plan to expand. I don't understand how you are interpreting what he said this last time as anything different. IMO, it isn't.

We are not expanding. We are getting the waiver, or we will keep divisions and play an unbalanced schedule.

I heard Colo State applied as soon as UConn announced it was leaving. We apparently don't plan to add them, though. Nothing seems to have changed.

And yes, if BYU or Army was interested, we would likely add them. Aresco has said this before. Boise, I doubt it, and Air Force, I have no idea, but perhaps so.
You
But, none of those apparently have expressed any interest, so no expansion.

Source?

What’s this about New Mexico and Colorado St being interested?
First I’ve heard of this.

(09-05-2019 04:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  I'd take Buffalo over either of those 2 in a heartbeat and so will the University Presidents.

Why? Because you want a NE replacement for UConn?

Buffalo generated $3M in ticket sales and alumni donations in 2018 per USA Today. That doesn't cut it.

What we got right with the Wichita addition is strong fan support, and Buffalo doesn't have it.

New Mexico's fan base generates $11M - $17M per year in ticket purchases and donations. About the same as UConn.

UMass is at $3.5M. Your comparison of New Mexico to UMass is inapt.

Not really, I'd gladly take Georgia state, FIU, or even North Texas, but I know that the University presidents are more likely to vote for Rice, UMass and/or Buffalo than those 3.

(09-05-2019 04:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  I'd take Buffalo over either of those 2 in a heartbeat and so will the University Presidents.

Why? Because you want a NE replacement for UConn?

Buffalo generated $3M in ticket sales and alumni donations in 2018 per USA Today. That doesn't cut it.

What we got right with the Wichita addition is strong fan support, and Buffalo doesn't have it.

New Mexico's fan base generates $11M - $17M per year in ticket purchases and donations. About the same as UConn.

UMass is at $3.5M. Your comparison of New Mexico to UMass is inapt.

UMass has a 17,000 seat on Campus that is smaller and has less amenities than most Texas HS football stadiums... But if they were to get an invite to the AAC (I don't think they will), they would play at Gillette Stadium until an new on Campus stadium was built, and they the alumni base to make that happen in a year or so.

And there is your ticket sales and alumni donations. I would understand UMass, although I'm not actively pushing for them just pointing out that they are a viable option to keep in mind doue to history and academics.

(09-05-2019 07:16 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 04:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  I'd take Buffalo over either of those 2 in a heartbeat and so will the University Presidents.

Why? Because you want a NE replacement for UConn?

Buffalo generated $3M in ticket sales and alumni donations in 2018 per USA Today. That doesn't cut it.

What we got right with the Wichita addition is strong fan support, and Buffalo doesn't have it.

New Mexico's fan base generates $11M - $17M per year in ticket purchases and donations. About the same as UConn.

UMass is at $3.5M. Your comparison of New Mexico to UMass is inapt.

Not really, I'd gladly take Georgia state or FIU, but I know that the University presidenta are morelikey to vote for Rice, UMass and/or Buffalo than those 2.

No to FIU. UCF probably has a bigger presence in the Miami market than FIU. Also don't need more recruiting competition for UCF and USF

(09-05-2019 06:03 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 08:00 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  If we don't get the waiver, I imagine we will play divisions with an unbalanced schedule, long before we add a team we don't want.

Precisely. So Aresco's comments lead me to believe we've had a decently attractive candidate express interest.

Probably not a BYU, Air Force, Army or Boise. Those would be slam dunks.

Perhaps a Colo St or New Mexico.

Huh? Aresco has said many times we don't plan to expand. I don't understand how you are interpreting what he said this last time as anything different. IMO, it isn't.

We are not expanding. We are getting the waiver, or we will keep divisions and play an unbalanced schedule.

I heard Colo State applied as soon as UConn announced it was leaving. We apparently don't plan to add them, though. Nothing seems to have changed.

And yes, if BYU or Army was interested, we would likely add them. Aresco has said this before. Boise, I doubt it, and Air Force, I have no idea, but perhaps so.

But, none of those apparently have expressed any interest, so no expansion.

Source?

Private. I would say if I could.