(08-21-2019 05:50 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So ... no news on the contract?

It's down to Wednesday morning games on HGTV or Tuesdays at 3pm on SyFy. Both are offering ~$1000 per team for the next 26 years. Hope they choose wisely.

(08-21-2019 08:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 06:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 05:52 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yeah no from here on out it’s the AAC, or Boise getting the access bowl. The money and reputation gap is too wide between them and everyone else. Don’t think a Western Michigan has a chance in today’s AAC dominated G5.

Realistically I’d be shocked if the next couple access bowls feature anyone but these teams.

UCF
Temple
USF
Memphis
Houston
Cincinnati
Boise

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. The AAC and the top of the MWC should account for 8 of 10 easily though at worst.

And that's the risk to the AAC if they take a couple of MW schools. Then an undefeated WY or Fresno St (for instance) might take the NY6 bowl over a 1-2 loss AAC champ.

Don't think so. The same reasoning that a 2 loss P5 team gets ranked ahead of UCF in CFP polls will apply to a 1 or 2 loss AAC team over the other four conferences. The exception would be an undefeated G3 team with 2 P5 wins or a 1 loss Boise team with 2 P5 wins, and the measure will be how good were those P5 teams that they beat? (and apologies to all AAC fans for using the P5 reference, but you know how the bias works).

(08-22-2019 12:35 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 08:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 06:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 05:52 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yeah no from here on out it’s the AAC, or Boise getting the access bowl. The money and reputation gap is too wide between them and everyone else. Don’t think a Western Michigan has a chance in today’s AAC dominated G5.

Realistically I’d be shocked if the next couple access bowls feature anyone but these teams.

UCF
Temple
USF
Memphis
Houston
Cincinnati
Boise

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. The AAC and the top of the MWC should account for 8 of 10 easily though at worst.

And that's the risk to the AAC if they take a couple of MW schools. Then an undefeated WY or Fresno St (for instance) might take the NY6 bowl over a 1-2 loss AAC champ.

Don't think so. The same reasoning that a 2 loss P5 team gets ranked ahead of UCF in CFP polls will apply to a 1 or 2 loss AAC team over the other four conferences. The exception would be an undefeated G3 team with 2 P5 wins or a 1 loss Boise team with 2 P5 wins, and the measure will be how good were those P5 teams that they beat? (and apologies to all AAC fans for using the P5 reference, but you know how the bias works).

One often overlooked benefit to expansion (with the right teams) is that you increase the likelihood that the two division winners both have nice-and-shiny win-loss records and rankings. In a larger conference, the division winners are less likely to have played each other during the conference schedule. So, you get a CCG that is more likely to match two ranked teams with 10+ wins. That CCG becomes more valuable for television and the winner of that CCG is likely to beat out any other G5 champ for the NY6 bid.

(08-22-2019 10:06 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:35 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 08:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 06:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 05:52 PM)zoocrew Wrote:  Yeah no from here on out it’s the AAC, or Boise getting the access bowl. The money and reputation gap is too wide between them and everyone else. Don’t think a Western Michigan has a chance in today’s AAC dominated G5.

Realistically I’d be shocked if the next couple access bowls feature anyone but these teams.

UCF
Temple
USF
Memphis
Houston
Cincinnati
Boise

I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. The AAC and the top of the MWC should account for 8 of 10 easily though at worst.

And that's the risk to the AAC if they take a couple of MW schools. Then an undefeated WY or Fresno St (for instance) might take the NY6 bowl over a 1-2 loss AAC champ.

Don't think so. The same reasoning that a 2 loss P5 team gets ranked ahead of UCF in CFP polls will apply to a 1 or 2 loss AAC team over the other four conferences. The exception would be an undefeated G3 team with 2 P5 wins or a 1 loss Boise team with 2 P5 wins, and the measure will be how good were those P5 teams that they beat? (and apologies to all AAC fans for using the P5 reference, but you know how the bias works).

One often overlooked benefit to expansion (with the right teams) is that you increase the likelihood that the two division winners both have nice-and-shiny win-loss records and rankings. In a larger conference, the division winners are less likely to have played each other during the conference schedule. So, you get a CCG that is more likely to match two ranked teams with 10+ wins. That CCG becomes more valuable for television and the winner of that CCG is likely to beat out any other G5 champ for the NY6 bid.

There’s some truth here. #14 UCF (11-0) vs #20 Memphis (10-1) was a great moment for the AAC. Although, we did happen to play in the regular season. Had that not happened, it might have been a Top 15 matchup.

That being said, diluting the schedule to stack up gaudy win numbers isn’t satisfying. We’ve done well enough so far. In four years, we’ve had six ranked teams in the AAC champ games. At least one every year, and twice with both teams.

(08-22-2019 11:06 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 10:06 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:35 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 08:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 06:24 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. The AAC and the top of the MWC should account for 8 of 10 easily though at worst.

And that's the risk to the AAC if they take a couple of MW schools. Then an undefeated WY or Fresno St (for instance) might take the NY6 bowl over a 1-2 loss AAC champ.

Don't think so. The same reasoning that a 2 loss P5 team gets ranked ahead of UCF in CFP polls will apply to a 1 or 2 loss AAC team over the other four conferences. The exception would be an undefeated G3 team with 2 P5 wins or a 1 loss Boise team with 2 P5 wins, and the measure will be how good were those P5 teams that they beat? (and apologies to all AAC fans for using the P5 reference, but you know how the bias works).

One often overlooked benefit to expansion (with the right teams) is that you increase the likelihood that the two division winners both have nice-and-shiny win-loss records and rankings. In a larger conference, the division winners are less likely to have played each other during the conference schedule. So, you get a CCG that is more likely to match two ranked teams with 10+ wins. That CCG becomes more valuable for television and the winner of that CCG is likely to beat out any other G5 champ for the NY6 bid.

There’s some truth here. #14 UCF (11-0) vs #20 Memphis (10-1) was a great moment for the AAC. Although, we did happen to play in the regular season. Had that not happened, it might have been a Top 15 matchup.

That being said, diluting the schedule to stack up gaudy win numbers isn’t satisfying. We’ve done well enough so far. In four years, we’ve had six ranked teams in the AAC champ games. At least one every year, and twice with both teams.

You don't dilute the schedule, you add strong teams that actually enhance the AAC's game inventory. The divisional structure and scheduling allows for the better win-loss records and rankings.

UCF would still have a solid AAC conference schedule. In fact, UCF could have played basically the same 2018 conference schedule - SMU and Navy are the cross-division games, Memphis becomes a divisional game, replace UConn with Tulane.

Meanwhile, Boise State, Houston, BYU and SDSU duke it out in the West division.

The likely result is an AAC conference championship game of #8 UCF (11-0, 8-0) against #18 Boise State (10-2, 7-1). The winner of that game easily grabs the NY6 bid.

Plus, you add bowl eligible teams in Boise State, SDSU, and BYU. The expanded AAC bowl lineup could have looked something like this (using expanded bowl affiliations):

Fiesta Bowl: UCF v. LSU
Military Bowl: Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech
Los Angeles Bowl: Boise State v. Arizona State
Fenway Bowl: Temple v. Duke
Birmingham Bowl: Memphis v. Wake Forest
First Responder Bowl: Houston v. Minnesota
Gasparilla Bowl: South Florida v. Georgia Tech
Armed Forces Bowl: BYU v. Army
Hawaii Bowl: San Diego State v. Hawaii
Cure Bowl: Tulane v. Marshall

That's a solid bowl lineup.

(08-22-2019 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:06 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 10:06 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:35 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 08:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  And that's the risk to the AAC if they take a couple of MW schools. Then an undefeated WY or Fresno St (for instance) might take the NY6 bowl over a 1-2 loss AAC champ.

Don't think so. The same reasoning that a 2 loss P5 team gets ranked ahead of UCF in CFP polls will apply to a 1 or 2 loss AAC team over the other four conferences. The exception would be an undefeated G3 team with 2 P5 wins or a 1 loss Boise team with 2 P5 wins, and the measure will be how good were those P5 teams that they beat? (and apologies to all AAC fans for using the P5 reference, but you know how the bias works).

One often overlooked benefit to expansion (with the right teams) is that you increase the likelihood that the two division winners both have nice-and-shiny win-loss records and rankings. In a larger conference, the division winners are less likely to have played each other during the conference schedule. So, you get a CCG that is more likely to match two ranked teams with 10+ wins. That CCG becomes more valuable for television and the winner of that CCG is likely to beat out any other G5 champ for the NY6 bid.

There’s some truth here. #14 UCF (11-0) vs #20 Memphis (10-1) was a great moment for the AAC. Although, we did happen to play in the regular season. Had that not happened, it might have been a Top 15 matchup.

That being said, diluting the schedule to stack up gaudy win numbers isn’t satisfying. We’ve done well enough so far. In four years, we’ve had six ranked teams in the AAC champ games. At least one every year, and twice with both teams.

You don't dilute the schedule, you add strong teams that actually enhance the AAC's game inventory. The divisional structure and scheduling allows for the better win-loss records and rankings.

UCF would still have a solid AAC conference schedule. In fact, UCF could have played basically the same 2018 conference schedule - SMU and Navy are the cross-division games, Memphis becomes a divisional game, replace UConn with Tulane.

Meanwhile, Boise State, Houston, BYU and SDSU duke it out in the West division.

The likely result is an AAC conference championship game of #8 UCF (11-0, 8-0) against #18 Boise State (10-2, 7-1). The winner of that game easily grabs the NY6 bid.

Plus, you add bowl eligible teams in Boise State, SDSU, and BYU. The expanded AAC bowl lineup could have looked something like this (using expanded bowl affiliations):

Fiesta Bowl: UCF v. LSU
Military Bowl: Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech
Los Angeles Bowl: Boise State v. Arizona State
Fenway Bowl: Temple v. Duke
Birmingham Bowl: Memphis v. Wake Forest
First Responder Bowl: Houston v. Minnesota
Gasparilla Bowl: South Florida v. Georgia Tech
Armed Forces Bowl: BYU v. Army
Hawaii Bowl: San Diego State v. Hawaii
Cure Bowl: Tulane v. Marshall

That's a solid bowl lineup.

Like the sound of this. I have a lot of business associates (many are BYU grads) in Provo who say and want BYU in a league. They think the AAC would be a great move, but none of them believe the BYU Administration will pull the trigger. They think BYU is still stuck in the past thinking a league like the AAC is beneath them. Hope they are wrong!!!

(08-22-2019 12:19 PM)Pitt Co Pirates Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:06 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 10:06 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:35 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  Don't think so. The same reasoning that a 2 loss P5 team gets ranked ahead of UCF in CFP polls will apply to a 1 or 2 loss AAC team over the other four conferences. The exception would be an undefeated G3 team with 2 P5 wins or a 1 loss Boise team with 2 P5 wins, and the measure will be how good were those P5 teams that they beat? (and apologies to all AAC fans for using the P5 reference, but you know how the bias works).

One often overlooked benefit to expansion (with the right teams) is that you increase the likelihood that the two division winners both have nice-and-shiny win-loss records and rankings. In a larger conference, the division winners are less likely to have played each other during the conference schedule. So, you get a CCG that is more likely to match two ranked teams with 10+ wins. That CCG becomes more valuable for television and the winner of that CCG is likely to beat out any other G5 champ for the NY6 bid.

There’s some truth here. #14 UCF (11-0) vs #20 Memphis (10-1) was a great moment for the AAC. Although, we did happen to play in the regular season. Had that not happened, it might have been a Top 15 matchup.

That being said, diluting the schedule to stack up gaudy win numbers isn’t satisfying. We’ve done well enough so far. In four years, we’ve had six ranked teams in the AAC champ games. At least one every year, and twice with both teams.

You don't dilute the schedule, you add strong teams that actually enhance the AAC's game inventory. The divisional structure and scheduling allows for the better win-loss records and rankings.

UCF would still have a solid AAC conference schedule. In fact, UCF could have played basically the same 2018 conference schedule - SMU and Navy are the cross-division games, Memphis becomes a divisional game, replace UConn with Tulane.

Meanwhile, Boise State, Houston, BYU and SDSU duke it out in the West division.

The likely result is an AAC conference championship game of #8 UCF (11-0, 8-0) against #18 Boise State (10-2, 7-1). The winner of that game easily grabs the NY6 bid.

Plus, you add bowl eligible teams in Boise State, SDSU, and BYU. The expanded AAC bowl lineup could have looked something like this (using expanded bowl affiliations):

Fiesta Bowl: UCF v. LSU
Military Bowl: Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech
Los Angeles Bowl: Boise State v. Arizona State
Fenway Bowl: Temple v. Duke
Birmingham Bowl: Memphis v. Wake Forest
First Responder Bowl: Houston v. Minnesota
Gasparilla Bowl: South Florida v. Georgia Tech
Armed Forces Bowl: BYU v. Army
Hawaii Bowl: San Diego State v. Hawaii
Cure Bowl: Tulane v. Marshall

That's a solid bowl lineup.

Like the sound of this. I have a lot of business associates (many are BYU grads) in Provo who say and want BYU in a league. They think the AAC would be a great move, but none of them believe the BYU Administration will pull the trigger. They think BYU is still stuck in the past thinking a league like the AAC is beneath them. Hope they are wrong!!!

BYU to the AAC is a great move, IF it involves Boise State and SDSU. BYU-Boise State is turning into a rivalry game and BYU needs frequent games in California and would benefit from consistent games in Texas. BYU could improve its late-season schedule and face the eastern AAC teams occasionally, rather than frequently.

IMO, even better if it were an all sports move, with Gonzaga also included in the new western Olympic sports contingency. And, stack schedules so that Olympic sports do not have more than one West-to-East road trip each season. Plenty of road game options with the BYU-Boise-Gonzaga-SDSU western group and Wichita-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Tulane-Memphis in the Central timezone.

(08-22-2019 12:33 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:19 PM)Pitt Co Pirates Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:06 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 10:06 AM)YNot Wrote:  One often overlooked benefit to expansion (with the right teams) is that you increase the likelihood that the two division winners both have nice-and-shiny win-loss records and rankings. In a larger conference, the division winners are less likely to have played each other during the conference schedule. So, you get a CCG that is more likely to match two ranked teams with 10+ wins. That CCG becomes more valuable for television and the winner of that CCG is likely to beat out any other G5 champ for the NY6 bid.

There’s some truth here. #14 UCF (11-0) vs #20 Memphis (10-1) was a great moment for the AAC. Although, we did happen to play in the regular season. Had that not happened, it might have been a Top 15 matchup.

That being said, diluting the schedule to stack up gaudy win numbers isn’t satisfying. We’ve done well enough so far. In four years, we’ve had six ranked teams in the AAC champ games. At least one every year, and twice with both teams.

You don't dilute the schedule, you add strong teams that actually enhance the AAC's game inventory. The divisional structure and scheduling allows for the better win-loss records and rankings.

UCF would still have a solid AAC conference schedule. In fact, UCF could have played basically the same 2018 conference schedule - SMU and Navy are the cross-division games, Memphis becomes a divisional game, replace UConn with Tulane.

Meanwhile, Boise State, Houston, BYU and SDSU duke it out in the West division.

The likely result is an AAC conference championship game of #8 UCF (11-0, 8-0) against #18 Boise State (10-2, 7-1). The winner of that game easily grabs the NY6 bid.

Plus, you add bowl eligible teams in Boise State, SDSU, and BYU. The expanded AAC bowl lineup could have looked something like this (using expanded bowl affiliations):

Fiesta Bowl: UCF v. LSU
Military Bowl: Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech
Los Angeles Bowl: Boise State v. Arizona State
Fenway Bowl: Temple v. Duke
Birmingham Bowl: Memphis v. Wake Forest
First Responder Bowl: Houston v. Minnesota
Gasparilla Bowl: South Florida v. Georgia Tech
Armed Forces Bowl: BYU v. Army
Hawaii Bowl: San Diego State v. Hawaii
Cure Bowl: Tulane v. Marshall

That's a solid bowl lineup.

Like the sound of this. I have a lot of business associates (many are BYU grads) in Provo who say and want BYU in a league. They think the AAC would be a great move, but none of them believe the BYU Administration will pull the trigger. They think BYU is still stuck in the past thinking a league like the AAC is beneath them. Hope they are wrong!!!

BYU to the AAC is a great move, IF it involves Boise State and SDSU. BYU-Boise State is turning into a rivalry game and BYU needs frequent games in California and would benefit from consistent games in Texas. BYU could improve its late-season schedule and face the eastern AAC teams occasionally, rather than frequently.

IMO, even better if it were an all sports move, with Gonzaga also included in the new western Olympic sports contingency. And, stack schedules so that Olympic sports do not have more than one West-to-East road trip each season. Plenty of road game options with the BYU-Boise-Gonzaga-SDSU western group and Wichita-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Tulane-Memphis in the Central timezone.

The WAC 16 was less ridiculous than this scenario^
Gonzaga?

(08-22-2019 12:33 PM)YNot Wrote:  BYU to the AAC is a great move, IF it involves Boise State and SDSU. BYU-Boise State is turning into a rivalry game and BYU needs frequent games in California and would benefit from consistent games in Texas. BYU could improve its late-season schedule and face the eastern AAC teams occasionally, rather than frequently.

IMO, even better if it were an all sports move, with Gonzaga also included in the new western Olympic sports contingency. And, stack schedules so that Olympic sports do not have more than one West-to-East road trip each season. Plenty of road game options with the BYU-Boise-Gonzaga-SDSU western group and Wichita-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Tulane-Memphis in the Central timezone.

No idea how this will all shake out in the end. Just personally, I would love for BYU to join and I’d view 2 or 3 other western teams in addition as an acceptable “price” to pay to gain that result, if (of course) they are the right teams.

But if it were up up to me, the answer is a hard *NO* to Boise State.

(08-22-2019 07:44 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:33 PM)YNot Wrote:  BYU to the AAC is a great move, IF it involves Boise State and SDSU. BYU-Boise State is turning into a rivalry game and BYU needs frequent games in California and would benefit from consistent games in Texas. BYU could improve its late-season schedule and face the eastern AAC teams occasionally, rather than frequently.

IMO, even better if it were an all sports move, with Gonzaga also included in the new western Olympic sports contingency. And, stack schedules so that Olympic sports do not have more than one West-to-East road trip each season. Plenty of road game options with the BYU-Boise-Gonzaga-SDSU western group and Wichita-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Tulane-Memphis in the Central timezone.

No idea how this will all shake out in the end. Just personally, I would love for BYU to join and I’d view 2 or 3 other western teams in addition as an acceptable “price” to pay to gain that result, if (of course) they are the right teams.

But if it were up up to me, the answer is a hard *NO* to Boise State.

I’ve long been a fan of adding enough teams to make it 16 for football and 17 (or 18) for basketball. If the NCAA allowed for it, I would like to have divisional play (7 games) with 1 crossover game. It may also make sense to add a 9th conference game so that only three non-conference games would be needed each season; the reason for this is that it might give us more negotiating power when trying to schedule A5 opponents due to the reduction of scheduling options for those programs.

Of course, such a scenario depends on the money involved.

I would add Boise State (whatever they did in the past can be forgiven if the money is right), Fresno State, San Diego State, BYU for all sports, then add Gonzaga for Olympics-only and Air Force for football-only.

However, this is likely a pipe dream. If we add anyone, I’m willing to bet that we add Air Force for football-only and possibly VCU for the Olympic sports.

(08-22-2019 10:17 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:44 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:33 PM)YNot Wrote:  BYU to the AAC is a great move, IF it involves Boise State and SDSU. BYU-Boise State is turning into a rivalry game and BYU needs frequent games in California and would benefit from consistent games in Texas. BYU could improve its late-season schedule and face the eastern AAC teams occasionally, rather than frequently.

IMO, even better if it were an all sports move, with Gonzaga also included in the new western Olympic sports contingency. And, stack schedules so that Olympic sports do not have more than one West-to-East road trip each season. Plenty of road game options with the BYU-Boise-Gonzaga-SDSU western group and Wichita-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Tulane-Memphis in the Central timezone.

No idea how this will all shake out in the end. Just personally, I would love for BYU to join and I’d view 2 or 3 other western teams in addition as an acceptable “price” to pay to gain that result, if (of course) they are the right teams.

But if it were up up to me, the answer is a hard *NO* to Boise State.

I’ve long been a fan of adding enough teams to make it 16 for football and 17 (or 18) for basketball. If the NCAA allowed for it, I would like to have divisional play (7 games) with 1 crossover game. It may also make sense to add a 9th conference game so that only three non-conference games would be needed each season; the reason for this is that it might give us more negotiating power when trying to schedule A5 opponents due to the reduction of scheduling options for those programs.

Of course, such a scenario depends on the money involved.

I would add Boise State (whatever they did in the past can be forgiven if the money is right), Fresno State, San Diego State, BYU for all sports, then add Gonzaga for Olympics-only and Air Force for football-only.

However, this is likely a pipe dream. If we add anyone, I’m willing to bet that we add Air Force for football-only and possibly VCU for the Olympic sports.

Not sure that ESPN money is there for your pipe dream, but if BYU is one of the adds, then one other is also already paid for (with UCONN money). Just need them to fork out for a third MWC team who wants to be here. All sports with true east and west divisions. The olympics except for BB can just compete in their own divisions until the championship round.

(08-22-2019 12:33 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:19 PM)Pitt Co Pirates Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:06 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 10:06 AM)YNot Wrote:  One often overlooked benefit to expansion (with the right teams) is that you increase the likelihood that the two division winners both have nice-and-shiny win-loss records and rankings. In a larger conference, the division winners are less likely to have played each other during the conference schedule. So, you get a CCG that is more likely to match two ranked teams with 10+ wins. That CCG becomes more valuable for television and the winner of that CCG is likely to beat out any other G5 champ for the NY6 bid.

There’s some truth here. #14 UCF (11-0) vs #20 Memphis (10-1) was a great moment for the AAC. Although, we did happen to play in the regular season. Had that not happened, it might have been a Top 15 matchup.

That being said, diluting the schedule to stack up gaudy win numbers isn’t satisfying. We’ve done well enough so far. In four years, we’ve had six ranked teams in the AAC champ games. At least one every year, and twice with both teams.

You don't dilute the schedule, you add strong teams that actually enhance the AAC's game inventory. The divisional structure and scheduling allows for the better win-loss records and rankings.

UCF would still have a solid AAC conference schedule. In fact, UCF could have played basically the same 2018 conference schedule - SMU and Navy are the cross-division games, Memphis becomes a divisional game, replace UConn with Tulane.

Meanwhile, Boise State, Houston, BYU and SDSU duke it out in the West division.

The likely result is an AAC conference championship game of #8 UCF (11-0, 8-0) against #18 Boise State (10-2, 7-1). The winner of that game easily grabs the NY6 bid.

Plus, you add bowl eligible teams in Boise State, SDSU, and BYU. The expanded AAC bowl lineup could have looked something like this (using expanded bowl affiliations):

Fiesta Bowl: UCF v. LSU
Military Bowl: Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech
Los Angeles Bowl: Boise State v. Arizona State
Fenway Bowl: Temple v. Duke
Birmingham Bowl: Memphis v. Wake Forest
First Responder Bowl: Houston v. Minnesota
Gasparilla Bowl: South Florida v. Georgia Tech
Armed Forces Bowl: BYU v. Army
Hawaii Bowl: San Diego State v. Hawaii
Cure Bowl: Tulane v. Marshall

That's a solid bowl lineup.

Like the sound of this. I have a lot of business associates (many are BYU grads) in Provo who say and want BYU in a league. They think the AAC would be a great move, but none of them believe the BYU Administration will pull the trigger. They think BYU is still stuck in the past thinking a league like the AAC is beneath them. Hope they are wrong!!!

BYU to the AAC is a great move, IF it involves Boise State and SDSU. BYU-Boise State is turning into a rivalry game and BYU needs frequent games in California and would benefit from consistent games in Texas. BYU could improve its late-season schedule and face the eastern AAC teams occasionally, rather than frequently.

IMO, even better if it were an all sports move, with Gonzaga also included in the new western Olympic sports contingency. And, stack schedules so that Olympic sports do not have more than one West-to-East road trip each season. Plenty of road game options with the BYU-Boise-Gonzaga-SDSU western group and Wichita-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Tulane-Memphis in the Central timezone.

There's something to be said for not taking the best teams in the MWC. We'll create a really tough conference slate that will make it difficult to go undefeated to get the Access Bowl, and we'll leave a weakened MWC where a resurgent team like Fresno or even Utah State can cruise right through. The BYU, Boise, SDSU type plan made a lot more sense when we thought we could keep AQ/Power status.

(08-23-2019 04:40 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:33 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:19 PM)Pitt Co Pirates Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:06 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  There’s some truth here. #14 UCF (11-0) vs #20 Memphis (10-1) was a great moment for the AAC. Although, we did happen to play in the regular season. Had that not happened, it might have been a Top 15 matchup.

That being said, diluting the schedule to stack up gaudy win numbers isn’t satisfying. We’ve done well enough so far. In four years, we’ve had six ranked teams in the AAC champ games. At least one every year, and twice with both teams.

You don't dilute the schedule, you add strong teams that actually enhance the AAC's game inventory. The divisional structure and scheduling allows for the better win-loss records and rankings.

UCF would still have a solid AAC conference schedule. In fact, UCF could have played basically the same 2018 conference schedule - SMU and Navy are the cross-division games, Memphis becomes a divisional game, replace UConn with Tulane.

Meanwhile, Boise State, Houston, BYU and SDSU duke it out in the West division.

The likely result is an AAC conference championship game of #8 UCF (11-0, 8-0) against #18 Boise State (10-2, 7-1). The winner of that game easily grabs the NY6 bid.

Plus, you add bowl eligible teams in Boise State, SDSU, and BYU. The expanded AAC bowl lineup could have looked something like this (using expanded bowl affiliations):

Fiesta Bowl: UCF v. LSU
Military Bowl: Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech
Los Angeles Bowl: Boise State v. Arizona State
Fenway Bowl: Temple v. Duke
Birmingham Bowl: Memphis v. Wake Forest
First Responder Bowl: Houston v. Minnesota
Gasparilla Bowl: South Florida v. Georgia Tech
Armed Forces Bowl: BYU v. Army
Hawaii Bowl: San Diego State v. Hawaii
Cure Bowl: Tulane v. Marshall

That's a solid bowl lineup.

Like the sound of this. I have a lot of business associates (many are BYU grads) in Provo who say and want BYU in a league. They think the AAC would be a great move, but none of them believe the BYU Administration will pull the trigger. They think BYU is still stuck in the past thinking a league like the AAC is beneath them. Hope they are wrong!!!

BYU to the AAC is a great move, IF it involves Boise State and SDSU. BYU-Boise State is turning into a rivalry game and BYU needs frequent games in California and would benefit from consistent games in Texas. BYU could improve its late-season schedule and face the eastern AAC teams occasionally, rather than frequently.

IMO, even better if it were an all sports move, with Gonzaga also included in the new western Olympic sports contingency. And, stack schedules so that Olympic sports do not have more than one West-to-East road trip each season. Plenty of road game options with the BYU-Boise-Gonzaga-SDSU western group and Wichita-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Tulane-Memphis in the Central timezone.

There's something to be said for not taking the best teams in the MWC. We'll create a really tough conference slate that will make it difficult to go undefeated to get the Access Bowl, and we'll leave a weakened MWC where a resurgent team like Fresno or even Utah State can cruise right through. The BYU, Boise, SDSU type plan made a lot more sense when we thought we could keep AQ/Power status.

Also how much is the raw total the AAC gets from the playoff funds? Dividing that 2 or 4 more ways may be more trouble than whatever dollar figure you attach to getting the access Bowl slightly more often.

(08-23-2019 09:14 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 04:40 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:33 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 12:19 PM)Pitt Co Pirates Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 11:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  You don't dilute the schedule, you add strong teams that actually enhance the AAC's game inventory. The divisional structure and scheduling allows for the better win-loss records and rankings.

UCF would still have a solid AAC conference schedule. In fact, UCF could have played basically the same 2018 conference schedule - SMU and Navy are the cross-division games, Memphis becomes a divisional game, replace UConn with Tulane.

Meanwhile, Boise State, Houston, BYU and SDSU duke it out in the West division.

The likely result is an AAC conference championship game of #8 UCF (11-0, 8-0) against #18 Boise State (10-2, 7-1). The winner of that game easily grabs the NY6 bid.

Plus, you add bowl eligible teams in Boise State, SDSU, and BYU. The expanded AAC bowl lineup could have looked something like this (using expanded bowl affiliations):

Fiesta Bowl: UCF v. LSU
Military Bowl: Cincinnati v. Virginia Tech
Los Angeles Bowl: Boise State v. Arizona State
Fenway Bowl: Temple v. Duke
Birmingham Bowl: Memphis v. Wake Forest
First Responder Bowl: Houston v. Minnesota
Gasparilla Bowl: South Florida v. Georgia Tech
Armed Forces Bowl: BYU v. Army
Hawaii Bowl: San Diego State v. Hawaii
Cure Bowl: Tulane v. Marshall

That's a solid bowl lineup.

Like the sound of this. I have a lot of business associates (many are BYU grads) in Provo who say and want BYU in a league. They think the AAC would be a great move, but none of them believe the BYU Administration will pull the trigger. They think BYU is still stuck in the past thinking a league like the AAC is beneath them. Hope they are wrong!!!

BYU to the AAC is a great move, IF it involves Boise State and SDSU. BYU-Boise State is turning into a rivalry game and BYU needs frequent games in California and would benefit from consistent games in Texas. BYU could improve its late-season schedule and face the eastern AAC teams occasionally, rather than frequently.

IMO, even better if it were an all sports move, with Gonzaga also included in the new western Olympic sports contingency. And, stack schedules so that Olympic sports do not have more than one West-to-East road trip each season. Plenty of road game options with the BYU-Boise-Gonzaga-SDSU western group and Wichita-Tulsa-SMU-Houston-Tulane-Memphis in the Central timezone.

There's something to be said for not taking the best teams in the MWC. We'll create a really tough conference slate that will make it difficult to go undefeated to get the Access Bowl, and we'll leave a weakened MWC where a resurgent team like Fresno or even Utah State can cruise right through. The BYU, Boise, SDSU type plan made a lot more sense when we thought we could keep AQ/Power status.

Also how much is the raw total the AAC gets from the playoff funds? Dividing that 2 or 4 more ways may be more trouble than whatever dollar figure you attach to getting the access Bowl slightly more often.

Over the five years of the CFP, the American has received $105M, averaging $21M per year. The difference dividing that up 14 ways vs 12 ways is a quarter of a million dollars less to each AAC school. Difference between 14 shares and 11 shares is $409,000.
That's a coordinator.

What's the difference in ticket sales revenue at Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston if you host BYU or Boise State instead of UConn? What conference revenue is added with an additional P5-level bowl game or two?

What's the difference in national perception and to the P6 campaign if the AAC adds BYU and Boise State?

(08-23-2019 10:15 AM)YNot Wrote:  What's the difference in ticket sales revenue at Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston if you host BYU or Boise State instead of UConn? What conference revenue is added with an additional P5-level bowl game or two?

What's the difference in national perception and to the P6 campaign if the AAC adds BYU and Boise State?

Damn,
You really want BYU to join the AAC huh?
This is weird.

(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:15 AM)YNot Wrote:  What's the difference in ticket sales revenue at Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston if you host BYU or Boise State instead of UConn? What conference revenue is added with an additional P5-level bowl game or two?

What's the difference in national perception and to the P6 campaign if the AAC adds BYU and Boise State?

Damn,
You really want BYU to join the AAC huh?
This is weird.

If I was a BYU fan I’d be all over it. I understand the higher ups prejudices against this league though.

(08-23-2019 10:15 AM)YNot Wrote:  What's the difference in ticket sales revenue at Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston if you host BYU or Boise State instead of UConn? What conference revenue is added with an additional P5-level bowl game or two?

What's the difference in national perception and to the P6 campaign if the AAC adds BYU and Boise State?

^He's right. ^

Need to look at the bigger picture.

(08-23-2019 10:29 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:15 AM)YNot Wrote:  What's the difference in ticket sales revenue at Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston if you host BYU or Boise State instead of UConn? What conference revenue is added with an additional P5-level bowl game or two?

What's the difference in national perception and to the P6 campaign if the AAC adds BYU and Boise State?

^He's right. ^

Need to look at the bigger picture.

Minimal difference in ticket sales at Navy. Our average attendance is 91% of capacity - so the two name-recognition schools would only add a couple thousand. BYU vs Niumatalolo might engender a little spark. UConn wasn't actually a drag for us in our location - and I acknowledge it may have been more so farther south or west. Navy's answer on ticket revenue increase - $120,000, maybe $200,000.

Bowl games...your "additional P5-level bowl added" is an assumption. You think we get to take the mwc's bowl tie that gets their champion just because we raid them? What P5-level bowl does BYU bring in their dowry? For the sake of argument though, looking at the list you had earlier...add Los Angeles Bowl (no numbers yet, so I'll add in the Las Vegas Bowl payout)...you have BYU in the Armed Forces Bowl, but that's already in our mix - maybe First Responders vs Big10 Minnesota?...divide by 14...I got $133,018.

So between gate and mid-pack bowls vs CFP $ at 11, Navy's out money for this little deal, and that's with the advantage we don't even have to travel our non-revenue sports 2-3 timezones away.

Perception and brand, heck yes. The masses know those names. And honestly it is a Power move, kicking in the mwc's door and taking what we want.

We're also in good shape standing pat.

(08-23-2019 10:22 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:15 AM)YNot Wrote:  What's the difference in ticket sales revenue at Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston if you host BYU or Boise State instead of UConn? What conference revenue is added with an additional P5-level bowl game or two?

What's the difference in national perception and to the P6 campaign if the AAC adds BYU and Boise State?

Damn,
You really want BYU to join the AAC huh?
This is weird.

If I was a BYU fan I’d be all over it. I understand the higher ups prejudices against this league though.

Here's the deal. If BYU had a November conference schedule of:

@Houston
SMU
@San Diego State
Boise State

...that would be a huge improvement over the status quo. This year's November schedule features Liberty, Idaho State, and UMass. Last year was actually one of the best November schedules because we had both Boise State and Utah...but both were on the road. The other November games were @UMass and New Mexico State....

BYU could still schedule the Utah rivalry game to start the season and have another 2 or 3 P5 opponents in the OOC schedule. Then fill out the rest of the schedule with Tulsa and Tulane and a couple from among UCF, USF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple, Cincinnati, Navy, and ECU....that's a fun schedule with something to play for and much better post-season options.

It would get the team to Idaho, California and Texas frequently, and continue to provide fan access to the rest of the nationwide fan base with occasional games in Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and North Carolina.

IMO, even better if the BYU basketball schedule featured Gonzaga, SDSU, Boise and Wichita, Tulsa, SMU, Houston and then games here and there with the rest of the AAC. Solid.