None.

You keep omitting the most correct answer on your polls - NONE.

To be "AAC-quality" let's set a relatively low bar and say a team has to be average or median. That means:

On field: CONSISTENTLY ranked above the middle of FBS overall, #65. (AAC's 5-year average of Massey Composite Conference average is right there).
Attendance: 29,000 (our conference 2019 average)
Budget: $55M (that's the median of the AAC schools listed in the USAToday database). Limit subsidies to our high of 55%, too.
Head Coach Salary consistently over $2M to keep from being poached by lousy autonomy-conference schools. That's about our median.
Recruiting: A five year average that would put them in the AAC top half. (Summer of '18 that included BYU, 2 mwc, 1 MAC school, 1 CUSA)

Assuming the AAC is forced to add a football school, I wii favor the one offering the best financial value and probable future success in football. All factors equal, I prefer UAB.

(01-14-2020 09:05 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:40 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Waiting for Panama in 3, 2, 1.....

Georgia State, new stadium, largest available market in AAC footprint, largest available new recruiting area in AAC footprint, largest available student enrollment in AAC footprint...

Most of their expansion has occurred since 2000.

Just like SUNY Buffalo it would be a major mistake for the AAC to overlook Georgia State...

OK, now Que Panama

Georgia State has had some recent FB & BB success, and as a R1 university, and a high enrollment semi-flagship school (after UG and GT) by virtue of #3 status in the Georgia University System (GUS) in a metro area of 4.6 million, may merit very serious consideration. However, with the possible exception of MBB, they might not meet enough criteria (e.g., national brand recognition) to make the AAC's final short list.

Their FBS program has only existed since 2010. GSU football teams played in 2015, 2017, and 2019 bowl games, going 1-2 in those games.

Their MBB teams were good enough to qualify for the 2014 NIT, but lost to Clemson in the first round.

They also had quite a good season in 2014-15, with an upset win over #3 Baylor, before losing to #6 Xavier, 67-75.

They also played in the 2018 and 2019 NCAA tournaments, but were among the lowest seeded teams (#15 & #14) and lost those two games by 15 and 29 points.

.
It looks like GSU may be able to meet more of the AAC's criteria than it may have seemed to many of us, at first:

"Georgia State University... is a public research university in Atlanta, Georgia. Founded in 1913, it is one of the University System of Georgia's four research universities." "The system is home to four research universities: Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Georgia, Augusta University and Georgia State University. It is also the largest institution of higher education by enrollment based in Georgia."

"The Carnegie Classification framework places Georgia State within its "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity" category, the framework's classification for universities in the United States that engage in the highest levels of research."

"The university is the most comprehensive public institution in Georgia, offering more than 250 degree programs in over 100 fields of study spread across 10 academic colleges and schools."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_University

(01-14-2020 08:34 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:05 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 07:39 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says Charlotte enters the chat room

Rather than referring to the school as "Charlotte," it probably makes the most sense for the rest of us to refer to them as "UNC Charlotte," since they are one of the largest schools in the UNC system.

The same is true for the U. of Buffalo to be referred to as SUNY Buffalo, an abbreviation for The State University of New York (flagship) at Buffalo."

Another option is "UNCC," following the example of UCLA, one of the largest in the U. California system.

"Charlotte" doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of name recognition that "UNC Charlotte" has. In fact, until I looked it up today, I wasn't 100% sure whether or not "Charlotte" was the same school as "UNC Charlotte" or "UNCC."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to UNC Charlotte, most people don't realize that, when they were in C-USA for 9 seasons, they had an excellent basketball team that appeared in the NCAA tourney 8 out of those 9 seasons.

Unfortunately, they haven't distinguished themselves in MBB since 2008 or so.

With respect to FB, they didn't have a FCS team until 2013 and only became FBS in 2015. They play in a 15,000 seat stadium, and probably wouldn't be eligible to play in the AAC unless they increased that to 25,000 seats or so.

2019 was their first winning season (7-6), and they lost to SUNY Buffalo (6-31).

With all due respect, the only chance UNCC FB would have to make it into the AAC in the next 10 years would be by building on their 2019 FB success for several years in a row and attaining the kind of excellence that Appalachian State has had recently. They would also have to expand their FB stadium by adding ~ 10,000 more seats.

With their solid BB legacy, UNCC MBB would have a slightly better shot at becoming an AAC team, but there are a few better options for the AAC at present, even within the A-10. So they would have to start winning 20+ games per year, consistently and have some success in the NCAA every year or two for the next 5+ years to have any chance in the next 10 years.

Yes, Charlotte does meet several AAC criteria, but not enough right now to be given a second thought, unfortunately. At least, not the way I understand the situation.

But meanwhile, go 49ers!

Charlotte has tons of name recognition.

You're right - of course - about Charlotte, North Carolina (the city) and Charlotte's NBA team, but the question here is about Charlotte, the university, and they've gotten very little attention from sports broadcasters in the past 10-15 years.

I may be one of the few around here, other than ECU fans, who remembers Charlotte's NCAA glory days in the late 90's through 2005-2008.

I recall Charlotte's run to the Final Four. The main name used back then was UNC Charlotte (more so than UNCC or Charlotte), if I'm not mistaken.

For marketing purposes, the university wants its athletics teams called Charlotte. I think that's smart.

Similarly, I think UAB officials missed a chance in the 80s when they asked the media to use UAB .. should have gone with Birmingham. The Birmingham Blazers. And use the Vulcan statue on some jerseys (alternating with the dragon).

No matter what the AAC will be taking on a project. That being said, I think it needs to be GA state, with the agreement they do x number of things within 5 and then x+ number of things in 10 years. Georgia gives the AAC a brand new state, and huge market, with good recruiting grounds and very easy travel. I don't think they give us anything short term, but could be a homerun long term if it all worked out.
Ga, and GT will always be #1 and #2, but GSU could become Georgia's UCF. It isn't a safe pick, but may be the one with the most upside.

I don't think there is anybody as thirsty to add somebody and kill any chance of actually achieving P6 status as jedclampett. Unlike your namesake, we're unlikely to stumble into black gold/Texas tea...

USFFan

(01-14-2020 09:42 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No matter what the AAC will be taking on a project. That being said, I think it needs to be GA state, with the agreement they do x number of things within 5 and then x+ number of things in 10 years. Georgia gives the AAC a brand new state, and huge market, with good recruiting grounds and very easy travel. I don't think they give us anything short term, but could be a homerun long term if it all worked out.
Ga, and GT will always be #1 and #2, but GSU could become Georgia's UCF. It isn't a safe pick, but may be the one with the most upside.

All Georgia State needs to get started is a massive media campaign, that will enable better recruiting which leads to wining and so on...

They are the only option that I can see with the potential of UCF, even thought I like Buffalo as well.

(01-14-2020 09:05 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:40 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Waiting for Panama in 3, 2, 1.....

Georgia State, new stadium, largest available market in AAC footprint, largest available new recruiting area in AAC footprint, largest available student enrollment in AAC footprint...

Most of their expansion has occurred since 2000.

Just like SUNY Buffalo it would be a major mistake for the AAC to overlook Georgia State...

OK, now Que Panama

I live in Atlanta. All of those stats you mentioned may be true and would mean something if you were talking about Georgia Tech, but Georgia State gets zero buzz in this town.

If Georgia State were to join for next year, and with the right coaches and AD, they could easily be on the poaching list if 2025 realignment were to happen... IT WON'T Happen

(01-14-2020 08:07 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  None of the above

It’s BYU, a MW team or kick out Tulsaane

FYP

(01-14-2020 09:30 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Assuming the AAC is forced to add a football school, I wii favor the one offering the best financial value and probable future success in football. All factors equal, I prefer UAB.

or USM.

We all know Cincy and Memphis miss us... Go Niners!

(01-14-2020 09:48 AM)jwawker Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 09:05 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 08:40 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Waiting for Panama in 3, 2, 1.....

Georgia State, new stadium, largest available market in AAC footprint, largest available new recruiting area in AAC footprint, largest available student enrollment in AAC footprint...

Most of their expansion has occurred since 2000.

Just like SUNY Buffalo it would be a major mistake for the AAC to overlook Georgia State...

OK, now Que Panama

I live in Atlanta. All of those stats you mentioned may be true and would mean something if you were talking about Georgia Tech, but Georgia State gets zero buzz in this town.

Probably due to being new to FBS... but it's a lot easier to recruit to Georgia State than it is to recruit to Georgia Tech (Academic Requirements) so I would think that they will move up quicker "IF" they were to start winning more often than not.

(01-14-2020 09:53 AM)49ShadesOfGreen Wrote:  We all know Cincy and Memphis miss us... Go Niners!

our aim is getting better tho

I'm a big fan of Georgia State simply because I'm a big fan of our conference being in GA, Atlanta specifically. there is a big gap in the east between UCF/USF and the rest.

(01-14-2020 09:27 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  .
NONE.

To be "AAC-quality" let's ...say a team has to be average or median. That means:

On field: CONSISTENTLY ranked above the middle of FBS overall, #65. (AAC's 5-year average of Massey Composite Conference average is right there).

RESPONSE: The poll question asks if a team can improve enough to get to that point not whether they have already attained this standard.

Attendance: 29,000 (our conference 2019 average)

RESPONSE: Several non-MWC schools already meet this standard.

Budget: $55M (that's the median of the AAC schools listed in the USAToday database). Limit subsidies to our high of 55%, too.
Head Coach Salary consistently over $2M to keep from being poached by lousy autonomy-conference schools. That's about our median.

RESPONSE: A school's median budget can be increased, if necessary. State schools might be able to get a budget increase if the long-term increase in funding from the AAC would justify the outlay.

Beyond that, some of the AAC schools with below-median budgets have had very successful athletic programs. Further, Commissioner Aresco has never included above-median budgets on the list of AAC criteria.


Recruiting: A five year average that would put them in the AAC top half. (Summer of '18 that included BYU, 2 mwc, 1 MAC school, 1 CUSA)

RESPONSE: If you'd like to include this as a standard, you'll have to run a separate poll, because this poll is about what potential member schools will be able to do by improving in the coming years, not about what happened in the past 5 years.

I respectfully disagree on all of these points for a number of solid reasons. For one thing due diligence indicates that you may have judged the issue based on too little information. That's ok - - no one has enough time to collect all the pertinent data.

I get it that you would have preferred adding a "NONE" category in the poll, but it wouldn't have made sense to do so, because the premise of the poll question stipulates the conditions, which are that IF no MWC teams are available, WHICH other schools could possibly IMPROVE ENOUGH in the readers view to merit AAC membership in the future?

If you're correct, and if no MWC schools join the American, the AAC would have no options at all (even if they're willing to be a bit more flexible on standards than you have stipulated)- - other than imploding, losing its $7 M per school broadcasting deal, and merging with another conference - - if raided by P5 conferences.

On that point, I think you're in error. There are certainly basketball schools that fully meet the AAC criteria. In addition, there are almost certainly at least 2 or 3 FB schools that could improve enough to meet the criteria.

Some of the schools with recent bowl games and NCAA tournaments that might receive AAC consideration (e.g., SUNY Buffalo (31,546), Georgia State University (53,000; 33,000 on main campus), and UNC Charlotte (29,710) have enrollments that clearly exceed the AAC median of 29,000.

You've also overlooked the fact that there are some non-MWC FBS schools that are R1 quality research universities.

These include SUNY Buffalo (R1; AAU; State Flagship School; SUNY enrollment: 440,000), Georgia State University (R1; #3 in State University Flagship system; over 200,000 enrollment), and Rice University (admittedly not a strong FB or MBB contender, but AAU; R1 and former member of a top power conference (South West Conference; SWC).

As it turns out, Appalachian State, a Final AP Top 20 FB program, is part of the UNC system of universities and may thus meet more of the AAC's criteria than many of us had once supposed.

(01-14-2020 10:32 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 09:27 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  None.

You keep omitting the most correct answer on your polls - NONE.

To be "AAC-quality" let's set a relatively low bar and say a team has to be average or median. That means:

On field: CONSISTENTLY ranked above the middle of FBS overall, #65. (AAC's 5-year average of Massey Composite Conference average is right there).
Attendance: 29,000 (our conference 2019 average)
Budget: $55M (that's the median of the AAC schools listed in the USAToday database). Limit subsidies to our high of 55%, too.
Head Coach Salary consistently over $2M to keep from being poached by lousy autonomy-conference schools. That's about our median.
Recruiting: A five year average that would put them in the AAC top half. (Summer of '18 that included BYU, 2 mwc, 1 MAC school, 1 CUSA)

I respectfully disagree on this one, in part because due diligence indicates that you may have judged the issue based on limited information. That's ok - - no one has enough time to collect all the pertinent data.

I get it that you would have preferred adding a "NONE" category in the poll, but it wouldn't have made sense to do so, because the premise of the poll question stipulates the conditions, which are that IF no MWC teams are available, WHICH other schools could possibly IMPROVE ENOUGH in the readers view to merit AAC membership in the future?

In addition, you're an intelligent guy, and it should be obvious enough to you that only about 60% to 66% of us have shown support for replacing UConn in both sports from all available schools. What that clearly suggests is that the number who would be in favor of adding a non-MWC school based on their current situations would be considerably lower. I think you know that is obvious. Thus, doing a poll on that topic would be pretty pointless.

If you disagree, you're free to run such a poll of your own, if you'd like. I didn't think that kind of a poll would be of much interest.

My initial impression is that, from your standpoint, the AAC will have no options at all (even if they're willing to be a bit more flexible on standards than you have stipulated)- - other than imploding, losing its $7 M per school broadcasting deal, and merging with another conference - - if raided by P5 conferences.

On that point, I think you're in error. There are certainly basketball schools that fully meet the AAC criteria. In addition, there are almost certainly at least 2 or 3 FB schools that could improve enough to meet the criteria. I'll try to prove why.

I'm not sure if you noticed that the question stipulates that any school on the list might be able to IMPROVE enough to qualify - - not whether any of them currently qualifies.

I believe the standards that you've set are within reach for several schools on the list

For example, you have arbitrarily stated that no school should qualify unless their enrollment and budget exceeds "the median of the AAC schools listed in the USAToday database." By selecting the AAC medians, you have suggested or implied that the AAC schools with smaller enrollments/budgets are somehow less qualified to be AAC members. The truth is that there are some very good AAC athletic programs that fall in these sub-median categories.

In addition, you have overlooked the fact that the enrollments of some of the schools with recent bowl games and NCAA tournaments that might receive AAC consideration (e.g., SUNY Buffalo (31,546), Georgia State University (53,000; 33,000 on main campus), and UNC Charlotte (29,710) have enrollments that clearly exceed the AAC median of 29,000.

You have stated that your suggested standards for recruiting and coaching salaries are to HAVE BEEN above a high enough level to be in the top half of the AAC.

By doing so - - for whatever and presumably valid reasons you considered to be optimal - - you tossed aside the poll's stipulation, which is based on the possibility that some schools might be able to improve to meet the standards within a few years of joining the conference.

You've also overlooked the fact that there are some non-MWC FBS schools that are R1 quality research universities.

These include SUNY Buffalo (R1; AAU; State Flagship School; SUNY enrollment: 440,000), Georgia State University (R1; #3 in State University Flagship system; over 200,000 enrollment), and Rice University (admittedly not a strong FB or MBB contender, but AAU; R1 and former member of a top power conference (South West Conference; SWC).

I just learned today that Appalachian State, a Final AP Top 20 program, is part of the UNC system of universities and may thus meet more of the AAC's criteria than many of us had once supposed.

I could write twice as many words to make a more complete case on this topic, but think I've made the main point. So, for now, we'll see how the voting and commentary goes.

USFFan

(01-14-2020 10:41 AM)usffan Wrote:  (image)

This thread has sparked considerable interest.

(01-14-2020 09:27 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  None.

You keep omitting the most correct answer on your polls - NONE.

To be "AAC-quality" let's set a relatively low bar and say a team has to be average or median. That means:

On field: CONSISTENTLY ranked above the middle of FBS overall, #65. (AAC's 5-year average of Massey Composite Conference average is right there).
Attendance: 29,000 (our conference 2019 average)
Budget: $55M (that's the median of the AAC schools listed in the USAToday database). Limit subsidies to our high of 55%, too.
Head Coach Salary consistently over $2M to keep from being poached by lousy autonomy-conference schools. That's about our median.
Recruiting: A five year average that would put them in the AAC top half. (Summer of '18 that included BYU, 2 mwc, 1 MAC school, 1 CUSA)

This doesn't include media markets or academics but it's a pretty good base benchmark. I wish the conference had more time than just one year on their waiver to analyze potential candidates for addition.

Prospective schools know the conference will probably need to add, it's far more attractive than any other G5 conference especially after this last football season and the TV money, and the AAC should set requirements for potential schools to meet (maybe they have and we don't know).

There are schools out there I'm personally interested in but wouldn't currently add.. I'd want to see what they can do over the course of the next 3 or 4 seasons. Adding is a big deal and it should be carefully thought out and not rushed because it's hard to reverse (see Tulsa).

I think it's widely known the geographical direction of the AAC is headed south, so I think that eliminates schools like Buffalo, NIU, WMU, etc. Focusing on southern schools, can UAB continue to rise and invest in their athletics? Georgia State has a great media market but can they rise to App State's level? Can App State continue their success and build up their other programs namely basketball? Marshall has decent history and name recognition but how much more can they invest in their programs.. can football become top 40 and can basketball maintain top 100?

(01-14-2020 10:03 AM)Meatwad Wrote:  I'm a big fan of Georgia State simply because I'm a big fan of our conference being in GA, Atlanta specifically. there is a big gap in the east between UCF/USF and the rest.

There is a geographical gap, but that's less of a plus than Georgia State's large enrollment, being the #3 university in the Georgia University System, and having trips to the NCAA and bowl games in the past few years.