(06-24-2019 11:09 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 11:08 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I'm sure that's supposed to be funny for some reason.

You awful grumpy tonight, brother. Just sayin...

You attack my morals, I'm gonna get "grumpy", as you put it. Fruckin'

(06-24-2019 10:57 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:00 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  You take BYU if you can get them. That’s a situation were the league comes out unequivocally stronger regardless of the basketball replacement. And BYU would be the networks top G5 choice every year for the NY6.

New Orleans is East of Memphis so move Tulane East.

UCF USF Temple Cincy Tulane ECU

BYU Houston Memphis Navy Tulsa SMU

I think you have to go all in to land BYU. That means Boise, Colorado State and then Air Force Football only.

UCF, USF, Temple, Cincy, Tulane, ECU, Memphis, Army

Tulsa, Navy, SMU, Houston,, BYU, Boise, CSU, AFA

AFA/Wichita
Navy/Dayton
Army/VCU

It guts the A10 and MWC and further strengthens the AAC as a P6. Biggest loser is probably Houston but that can be worked around by giving them Cincy and Memphis as permanent crossover games. All schools are guaranteed to never play more than 2 academies a season. Top 2 teams play in championship game regardless of division but division winners get the 2 best bowls. Honestly, if we could do the above, we come out significantly better post UCONN.. Dayton and VCU have two of the best fan bases in all of college basketball and will always be packed and loud for TV games.

I like your thinking but I'm curious how does gutting the A10 help us? The mwc yes that's the most logical business decision possible but what's in it for the AAC to harm the A10. Now if we can create a western wing with Byu, Boise, SDSU or AFA to reach Gonzaga, well now talking about a real power boost perception wise. The AAC could literally challenge the pac12 on the field and on the basketball court for power status. Gonzaga actually has more gravitas than UCONN currently and I'd consider them as replaced. The mwc would die and no other g4 would ever get the ny6 .

(06-24-2019 11:11 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 11:09 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 11:08 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I'm sure that's supposed to be funny for some reason.

You awful grumpy tonight, brother. Just sayin...

You attack my morals, I'm gonna get "grumpy", as you put it. Fruckin'

Glad it wasn't me, lol.

Good, losing UCONN is somewhat of a loss, but unless you're bringing in a decent brand in BYU/Boise State/Army/Air Force, then stay at 11 and not become the old version of C-USA.

(06-24-2019 10:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:26 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:22 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  BYU isn’t coming. Partial membership maybe.

MWC schools are a knock in’

So--here is something to consider. Personally, I think BYU is a pipe dream---but fine---make sure thats not a possibility. When that flames out---how about this--

I think Air Force would come if they were paired with Colorado St. I also think that if you get Air Force (along with CSU), that Army would be very interested in joining the AAC. Add AF (football only) and CSU in the west. Add Army to the east (football only). Shift Memphis east. Add VCU to replace lost quality basketball depth.

Now the AAC has a real identity as a Patriotic national conference and ---"Home of the Military Academies". Three of the four Commanders Cup games would fall under the AAC banner. That has real value. The AAC logo starts to take on a whole new and patriotic meaning. No way the P5 leave the AAC behind in that scenario--plus the AAC will maintain its status as a hell of a basketball conference.

Question,,,,, what kinda sense does it make to raid our nearest ny6 competition (mwc) and take their lessor teams while leaving the two best Boise and SDSU there to fight us every year for the access bowl game?

Honesty---because they are just too darn far. I dont think your going to get Boise or SDSU with "football only" deals. Your going to have to make them full members and fly your volleyball team to these places. That said---Im ok with Boise, SDSU, and AF. I just dont think the presidents will go for that. Maybe Boise, CSU, and AF is viable a compromise? idk. The point is--I'd MUCH rather do ANY of those kinds of combinations than add a Marshall or a S Miss or a UAB and take one step closer to reforming that failed CUSA 2.0 model. Three quarters of this conference paid a CUSA exit fee for a reason.

(06-25-2019 12:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:26 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:22 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  BYU isn’t coming. Partial membership maybe.

MWC schools are a knock in’

So--here is something to consider. Personally, I think BYU is a pipe dream---but fine---make sure thats not a possibility. When that flames out---how about this--

I think Air Force would come if they were paired with Colorado St. I also think that if you get Air Force (along with CSU), that Army would be very interested in joining the AAC. Add AF (football only) and CSU in the west. Add Army to the east (football only). Shift Memphis east. Add VCU to replace lost quality basketball depth.

Now the AAC has a real identity as a Patriotic national conference and ---"Home of the Military Academies". Three of the four Commanders Cup games would fall under the AAC banner. That has real value. The AAC logo starts to take on a whole new and patriotic meaning. No way the P5 leave the AAC behind in that scenario--plus the AAC will maintain its status as a hell of a basketball conference.

Question,,,,, what kinda sense does it make to raid our nearest ny6 competition (mwc) and take their lessor teams while leaving the two best Boise and SDSU there to fight us every year for the access bowl game?

Honesty---because they are just too darn far. I dont think your going to get Boise or SDSU with "football only" deals. Your going to have to make them full members and fly your volleyball team to these places. That said---Im ok with Boise, SDSU, and AF. I just dont think the presidents will go for that. Maybe Boise, CSU, and AF is viable a compromise? idk. The point is--I'd MUCH rather do ANY of those kinds of combinations than add a Marshall or a S Miss or a UAB and take one step closer to reforming that failed CUSA 2.0 model. Three quarters of this conference paid a CUSA exit fee for a reason.

we willingly removed sdsu's exit fees...the let them rejoin in womens sports

your reason for not wanting sdsu (presidents wont go for it) is the exact reason sdsu will be the 1st invite if we go mw..the presidents are comfortable with sdsu

we've built a relationship with sdsu already, the are already partial members and are on great terms ..easiest to convince

(06-25-2019 12:59 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 12:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 03:26 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  MWC schools are a knock in’

So--here is something to consider. Personally, I think BYU is a pipe dream---but fine---make sure thats not a possibility. When that flames out---how about this--

I think Air Force would come if they were paired with Colorado St. I also think that if you get Air Force (along with CSU), that Army would be very interested in joining the AAC. Add AF (football only) and CSU in the west. Add Army to the east (football only). Shift Memphis east. Add VCU to replace lost quality basketball depth.

Now the AAC has a real identity as a Patriotic national conference and ---"Home of the Military Academies". Three of the four Commanders Cup games would fall under the AAC banner. That has real value. The AAC logo starts to take on a whole new and patriotic meaning. No way the P5 leave the AAC behind in that scenario--plus the AAC will maintain its status as a hell of a basketball conference.

Question,,,,, what kinda sense does it make to raid our nearest ny6 competition (mwc) and take their lessor teams while leaving the two best Boise and SDSU there to fight us every year for the access bowl game?

Honesty---because they are just too darn far. I dont think your going to get Boise or SDSU with "football only" deals. Your going to have to make them full members and fly your volleyball team to these places. That said---Im ok with Boise, SDSU, and AF. I just dont think the presidents will go for that. Maybe Boise, CSU, and AF is viable a compromise? idk. The point is--I'd MUCH rather do ANY of those kinds of combinations than add a Marshall or a S Miss or a UAB and take one step closer to reforming that failed CUSA 2.0 model. Three quarters of this conference paid a CUSA exit fee for a reason.

we willingly removed sdsu's exit fees...the let them rejoin in womens sports

your reason for not wanting sdsu (presidents wont go for it) is the exact reason sdsu will be the 1st invite if we go mw..the presidents are comfortable with sdsu

we've built a relationship with sdsu already, the are already partial members and are on great terms ..easiest to convince

I dont agree. We let them go for a reason---simple geography. SDSU is an excellent institution and its administration acted as excellent partners. But there is a HUGE 1100 mile difference between stretching the footprint to Colorado and stretching it to San Diego. Poaching a pair of Colorado schools from the MW is an entirely different proposition than making the AAC a full coast to coast conference. I dont think the presidents have the stomach for a full on coast to coast expansion----nor are they likley interested in doing it without a significant bump in pay well over the 7 million a year TV deal. I believe the expanding the footprint to Colorado would be much more palatable to the leadership.

(06-25-2019 01:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 12:59 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 12:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So--here is something to consider. Personally, I think BYU is a pipe dream---but fine---make sure thats not a possibility. When that flames out---how about this--

I think Air Force would come if they were paired with Colorado St. I also think that if you get Air Force (along with CSU), that Army would be very interested in joining the AAC. Add AF (football only) and CSU in the west. Add Army to the east (football only). Shift Memphis east. Add VCU to replace lost quality basketball depth.

Now the AAC has a real identity as a Patriotic national conference and ---"Home of the Military Academies". Three of the four Commanders Cup games would fall under the AAC banner. That has real value. The AAC logo starts to take on a whole new and patriotic meaning. No way the P5 leave the AAC behind in that scenario--plus the AAC will maintain its status as a hell of a basketball conference.

Question,,,,, what kinda sense does it make to raid our nearest ny6 competition (mwc) and take their lessor teams while leaving the two best Boise and SDSU there to fight us every year for the access bowl game?

Honesty---because they are just too darn far. I dont think your going to get Boise or SDSU with "football only" deals. Your going to have to make them full members and fly your volleyball team to these places. That said---Im ok with Boise, SDSU, and AF. I just dont think the presidents will go for that. Maybe Boise, CSU, and AF is viable a compromise? idk. The point is--I'd MUCH rather do ANY of those kinds of combinations than add a Marshall or a S Miss or a UAB and take one step closer to reforming that failed CUSA 2.0 model. Three quarters of this conference paid a CUSA exit fee for a reason.

we willingly removed sdsu's exit fees...the let them rejoin in womens sports

your reason for not wanting sdsu (presidents wont go for it) is the exact reason sdsu will be the 1st invite if we go mw..the presidents are comfortable with sdsu

we've built a relationship with sdsu already, the are already partial members and are on great terms ..easiest to convince

I dont agree. We let them go for a reason---simple geography. SDSU is an excellent institution and its administration acted as excellent partners. But there is a HUGE 1100 mile difference between stretching the footprint to Colorado and stretching it to San Diego. Poaching a pair of Colorado schools from the MW is an entirely different proposition than making the AAC a full coast to coast conference. I dont think the presidents have the stomach for a full on coast to coast expansion----nor are they likley interested in doing it without a significant bump in pay well over the 7 million a year TV deal. I believe the expanding the footprint to Colorado would be much more palatable to the leadership.

we didn't let them go..they chose to leave with no travel partner..which they ppublicly said if they could find a partner they would stay

note that after it was obvious they were leaving sdsu still chose to come to dallas for a presidents meeting
they are also in the emails complaining about boise wanting a special deal

they also spent thanksgiving with aresco the year they were added

there are also numerous west coast conferences for womens rowing..they chose the aac..this isn't some ancient history it was just 5 years ago..they are technically already aac members

we didn't even offer csu last time (we added boise, sdsu and offered fresno and unlv)

if we go west in the MWC sdsu will get an invite on the built relationship..

everything you are saying was valid last time aswell but we still had no interest in csu

(06-24-2019 01:56 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

This pretty much seals the deal with BYU. if ESPN is doing all the shot calls then it would be beneficial for them to add BYU for the cost savings and showcase.

sounds like it is going to be a done deal.

(06-24-2019 11:37 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:57 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:00 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  You take BYU if you can get them. That’s a situation were the league comes out unequivocally stronger regardless of the basketball replacement. And BYU would be the networks top G5 choice every year for the NY6.

New Orleans is East of Memphis so move Tulane East.

UCF USF Temple Cincy Tulane ECU

BYU Houston Memphis Navy Tulsa SMU

I think you have to go all in to land BYU. That means Boise, Colorado State and then Air Force Football only.

UCF, USF, Temple, Cincy, Tulane, ECU, Memphis, Army

Tulsa, Navy, SMU, Houston,, BYU, Boise, CSU, AFA

AFA/Wichita
Navy/Dayton
Army/VCU

It guts the A10 and MWC and further strengthens the AAC as a P6. Biggest loser is probably Houston but that can be worked around by giving them Cincy and Memphis as permanent crossover games. All schools are guaranteed to never play more than 2 academies a season. Top 2 teams play in championship game regardless of division but division winners get the 2 best bowls. Honestly, if we could do the above, we come out significantly better post UCONN.. Dayton and VCU have two of the best fan bases in all of college basketball and will always be packed and loud for TV games.

I like your thinking but I'm curious how does gutting the A10 help us? The mwc yes that's the most logical business decision possible but what's in it for the AAC to harm the A10. Now if we can create a western wing with Byu, Boise, SDSU or AFA to reach Gonzaga, well now talking about a real power boost perception wise. The AAC could literally challenge the pac12 on the field and on the basketball court for power status. Gonzaga actually has more gravitas than UCONN currently and I'd consider them as replaced. The mwc would die and no other g4 would ever get the ny6 .

I am good with this switch vcu for Gonzaga and we are loaded. Create divisions for travel

This madness needs to end so we can go back to our regularly scheduled programming: Bickering and Fighting Amongst Ourselves

(06-24-2019 08:41 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Still have not gotten why the AAC is so confident that NCAA and P5 will help the AAC by not having issue with a waiver since it is not a hardship but choice to stay at 11. It's not like the P5 has gone out of its way to help the AAC in the past. Imagine they will probably have input to the waiver request. They NCAA is likely to say, you can raise the issue to change the rules but if it fails, AAC willingly took that risk.


Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

The freakin MAC got a waiver very recently for unbalanced divisions when they had UMass as a FB only member. The AAC will be fine be playing round robin within the divisions, maybe not so much if we try single division and 2 highest ranked meet.

Aresco should know the rules before speaking to the media, but Aresco gonna Aresco.

(06-25-2019 05:06 AM)Agust Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 01:56 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

This pretty much seals the deal with BYU. if ESPN is doing all the shot calls then it would be beneficial for them to add BYU for the cost savings and showcase.

sounds like it is going to be a done deal.

That seems like a shot in the dark, or at least simply McM's guess on how it would work. We all kind of expected ESPN to be the gatekeeper.

I also don't think we'll modify the contract either way. I think it will be more of a "can this team replace UConn?" situation. New team would get UConn's share as long as ESPN blesses it, and agreement moves on as intended...just with better football.

(06-25-2019 07:02 AM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:41 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Still have not gotten why the AAC is so confident that NCAA and P5 will help the AAC by not having issue with a waiver since it is not a hardship but choice to stay at 11. It's not like the P5 has gone out of its way to help the AAC in the past. Imagine they will probably have input to the waiver request. They NCAA is likely to say, you can raise the issue to change the rules but if it fails, AAC willingly took that risk.


Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

The freakin MAC got a waiver very recently for unbalanced divisions when they had UMass as a FB only member. The AAC will be fine be playing round robin within the divisions, maybe not so much if we try single division and 2 highest ranked meet.

Aresco should know the rules before speaking to the media, but Aresco gonna Aresco.

I think the MAC had to get a waiver before the rule went into place. The actual divisional rule says "as balanced as possible". In other words, there seems to be an expectation that interesting scheduling is accepted for odd-numbered conferences, without the need for a waiver.

(06-24-2019 08:41 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Still have not gotten why the AAC is so confident that NCAA and P5 will help the AAC by not having issue with a waiver since it is not a hardship but choice to stay at 11. It's not like the P5 has gone out of its way to help the AAC in the past. Imagine they will probably have input to the waiver request. They NCAA is likely to say, you can raise the issue to change the rules but if it fails, AAC willingly took that risk.


Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

How is it not a hardship?
Another conference invited one of our members. We entreated them to stay but they left. We can't snap our fingers and bring in another team. We request a temporary waiver for the years currently projected to have only 11.
It's a request. For a waiver - not a rule change.
Also - just to be sure we're all clear. Can play uneven divisions with no waiver. Waiver would be to play divisionless, and match up top two teams without full conference round robin.

(06-25-2019 07:32 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:41 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Still have not gotten why the AAC is so confident that NCAA and P5 will help the AAC by not having issue with a waiver since it is not a hardship but choice to stay at 11. It's not like the P5 has gone out of its way to help the AAC in the past. Imagine they will probably have input to the waiver request. They NCAA is likely to say, you can raise the issue to change the rules but if it fails, AAC willingly took that risk.


Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

How is it not a hardship?
Another conference invited one of our members. We entreated them to stay but they left. We can't snap our fingers and bring in another team. We request a temporary waiver for the years currently projected to have only 11.
It's a request. For a waiver - not a rule change.
Also - just to be sure we're all clear. Can play uneven divisions with no waiver. Waiver would be to play divisionless, and match up top two teams without full conference round robin.

Exactly. People don't read, sometimes. We can play division RR at 11 (6 and 5) with no waiver, it's just that the scheduling is a serious pain in the butt, with unbalanced number of conference games per team.

I would much prefer no divisions and the top two ranked teams play, which DOES require a waiver. Problem with that is, in actuality, all 12 games then count, not just conference games, since we're using CFP rankings, so any inequities in OOC schedules will likely disadvantage the tougher OOCs, and incentivize schools to play cupcakes.

(06-24-2019 08:41 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Still have not gotten why the AAC is so confident that NCAA and P5 will help the AAC by not having issue with a waiver since it is not a hardship but choice to stay at 11.

1. Theory: Aresco does talk to the other commissioners, UConn to the Big East is not as big a surprise to Aresco as it was to us peasants, and he seems comfortable with 11.

2. Theory, plus evidence: The NCAA operates less by rules and more by a gentlemen's agreement to protect those who have. WAC loses a bunch of teams, their FBS and conference status is at risk? Change the rules. C7 got shafted by realignment plus the rules put in to save the WAC? Give them an autobid anyway. (Throw in the Big East keeping BCS status after Miami leaves). On that basis, UConn leaving the AAC isn't really the AAC's fault, so let the AAC keep their championship game and don't worry about round robin.

(06-25-2019 06:47 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  This madness needs to end so we can go back to our regularly scheduled programming: Bickering and Fighting Amongst Ourselves

This, and don't forget, Memphis loves to hate you guys.

(06-25-2019 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:32 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:41 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Still have not gotten why the AAC is so confident that NCAA and P5 will help the AAC by not having issue with a waiver since it is not a hardship but choice to stay at 11. It's not like the P5 has gone out of its way to help the AAC in the past. Imagine they will probably have input to the waiver request. They NCAA is likely to say, you can raise the issue to change the rules but if it fails, AAC willingly took that risk.


Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

How is it not a hardship?
Another conference invited one of our members. We entreated them to stay but they left. We can't snap our fingers and bring in another team. We request a temporary waiver for the years currently projected to have only 11.
It's a request. For a waiver - not a rule change.
Also - just to be sure we're all clear. Can play uneven divisions with no waiver. Waiver would be to play divisionless, and match up top two teams without full conference round robin.

Exactly. People don't read, sometimes. We can play division RR at 11 (6 and 5) with no waiver, it's just that the scheduling is a serious pain in the butt, with unbalanced number of conference games per team.

I would much prefer no divisions and the top two ranked teams play, which DOES require a waiver. Problem with that is, in actuality, all 12 games then count, since we're using CFP rankings, not just conference games, so any inequities in OOC schedules will likely disadvantage the tougher OOCs, and incentivize schools to play cupcakes.

Maybe if you lose those games. If, however, two teams have the same record, one team beats Louisiana-Monroe, and one beats Wisconsin, the rankings should reflect it.

Personally, I don't want the AAC to send a team that cruises to a nice bowl via a garbage schedule so they can get embarrassed.

(06-24-2019 09:40 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  What would a waiver be for again?

To play a CCG, without satisfying the current rules to have a CCG. (Round-robin competition either in your division or league-wide.) With unbalanced divisions, round-robin means you can't balance the number of cross-division games.

Quote:If the AAC stays at 11, then we’ll simply have unbalanced divisions and still stage a CCG. Big 10 did it for years.

Big 10 never had a CCG when they had 11 teams.

Quote:Apparently other leagues are open to changing the rules of a CCG - so that’s where any outside support comes from in the event we want to eliminate divisions and still stage a CCG without any sort of round robin.

Y'all hope so anyway. (I think you're right, but I don't know)