(10-18-2019 08:30 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:05 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 11:55 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  A quick word about “adding value”. This phrase has a different, mostly subjective meaning to most AAC posters than it does to just about everyone else on these forums. In those hands, it’s used as a bullying tool to declare yourselves better than others...despite the obvious fact that at least 65 teams in FBS clearly have it better than you do. I have no doubt in my mind that the learned men who are actually making these decisions for the AAC have a more objective meaning to the phrase in mind.

I'm often critical of AAC fans around here, but IMO they use the phrase "add value" very accurately: The AAC has a new TV deal that brings in about $7m a school, so any school added must be at least worth that to ESPN, and preferably more. You can't be adding schools that are going to lower your per-school payout, unless there is a very compelling reason.

You mention Wichita State, but when they joined (a) the AAC was still under the old hyper-peanuts deal so the amount needed to add value was lower, and (b) presumably, they aren't sharing in the football revenue, so they only have to be value-worthy in a non-football sense, which I am sure they are.

I don't see that being used in any other way.

You seem to take umbrage at this, as it may exclude USM from AAC membership, something that grates when the AAC includes several schools that you shared a conference with just a few years ago. Believe me, as a USF fan, I know the feeling.

But it doesn't change the reality.

I've noticed that a lot of people are still saying that the American programs are going to be getting 7mil. The actual amount is closer to 8mil per team. It seems that up to now ESPN hasn't shown any particular interest in decreasing the total payout to the AAC with or without UCONN and that doesn't even include splitting their share of NCAA and CFP monies. The AAC teams are actually coming into a mini windfall once the waiver is granted after UCONN scats.

Whether UConn is replaced or not, the other AAC schools definitely shouldn't count on ESPN being generous enough to pay each of them any more than they already agreed to.

It's nice of you to repeat your wish again but the fact is as I've stated in the PREVIOUS post, that ESPN hasn't shown any signs that they are going to or are in any type of negotiations to reduce any part of the AAC overall payout with or without UCONN. If I've missed some credible report or source saying otherwise, I'd gladly appreciate a link.

(10-18-2019 08:41 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 08:30 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:05 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 11:55 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  A quick word about “adding value”. This phrase has a different, mostly subjective meaning to most AAC posters than it does to just about everyone else on these forums. In those hands, it’s used as a bullying tool to declare yourselves better than others...despite the obvious fact that at least 65 teams in FBS clearly have it better than you do. I have no doubt in my mind that the learned men who are actually making these decisions for the AAC have a more objective meaning to the phrase in mind.

I'm often critical of AAC fans around here, but IMO they use the phrase "add value" very accurately: The AAC has a new TV deal that brings in about $7m a school, so any school added must be at least worth that to ESPN, and preferably more. You can't be adding schools that are going to lower your per-school payout, unless there is a very compelling reason.

You mention Wichita State, but when they joined (a) the AAC was still under the old hyper-peanuts deal so the amount needed to add value was lower, and (b) presumably, they aren't sharing in the football revenue, so they only have to be value-worthy in a non-football sense, which I am sure they are.

I don't see that being used in any other way.

You seem to take umbrage at this, as it may exclude USM from AAC membership, something that grates when the AAC includes several schools that you shared a conference with just a few years ago. Believe me, as a USF fan, I know the feeling.

But it doesn't change the reality.

I've noticed that a lot of people are still saying that the American programs are going to be getting 7mil. The actual amount is closer to 8mil per team. It seems that up to now ESPN hasn't shown any particular interest in decreasing the total payout to the AAC with or without UCONN and that doesn't even include splitting their share of NCAA and CFP monies. The AAC teams are actually coming into a mini windfall once the waiver is granted after UCONN scats.

Whether UConn is replaced or not, the other AAC schools definitely shouldn't count on ESPN being generous enough to pay each of them any more than they already agreed to.

It's nice of you to repeat your wish again but the fact is as I've stated in the PREVIOUS post, that ESPN hasn't shown any signs that they are going to or are in any type of negotiations to reduce any part of the AAC overall payout with or without UCONN. If I've missed some credible report or source saying otherwise, I'd gladly appreciate a link.

I have no dog in this fight. It's just that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And megacorporations have not been known to be generous.

(10-18-2019 11:55 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 11:58 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 09:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think Aresco is dragging his feet since it's the ball is in the NCAA's court at this point. My main issue with Aresco is his frequent habit of over-promising and under-delivering. His public comments about a waiver make it seem like a simple formality that is essentially guaranteed to get approved, whereas the stark reality is that the ACC was shot down just a couple of years ago for essentially what Aresco is asking for. I don't think he's being transparent with the fans. If anything, the public confidence that he's displaying by stating the AAC is stronger with just 11 football members could work against him. A hardship waiver is less likely to be granted if you're doing everything possible to claim that you don't actually have a hardship and are positioning what is supposed to be temporary waiver to actually be a permanent one in reality. IMHO, Aresco would have been better off stating, "UConn screwed us. We're scrambling for next year, so we need help from the NCAA to make us whole on such short notice."

Agree. I think getting a waiver is almost a sure thing for the AAC---just not the waiver Aresco really wants. I guess that confidence he is exuding is just bravado gone haywire.

As to his other talking points strategy---I think you have to consider that Aresco is fighting a PR battle on several fronts at the same time. The P6 narrative means he has to maintain the AAC remains strong without UConn. Running around saying the conference is in shambles without UConn might help with the NCAA, but it would hurt his P6 narrative--at a time when the on the field play is giving the P6 thing some traction in the computer conference rankings.

I’m quoting this quote train for one very important reason: it’s the one that finally discusses what is really going on here.

I can promise you the powers that be in the AAC are not overly concerned with the pet theories and pie-in-the-sky desires of message board warriors.

As it has been since the conference settled on the “P6” campaign as the best way forward, the AAC is concerned with how this looks. They aren’t concerned with geography or identity or this team or that team. When the time comes to add someone, they will simply pick from a shortlist that probably only saw minor changes with UConn leaving.

And that time will come, if for no other reason than because the pressure, both internal and external, to add a replacement will be immense. That replacement will be someone willing to accept the conditions of AAC membership. That tends to rule out programs looking for a stable, long term home or programs looking for something they can get in their current situation.

The discussion here about Air Force being unhappy suggests y’all know this already. But it’s that very situation which reveals the outer limit of the AAC’s reach: the MWC, despite its known issues, is stable because of its geography, and the AAC doesn’t have enough advantages to easily overcome that advantage.

Thus, the AAC has one real path forward, and that is tobuy as much time as possible in order to spin the events as favorably as possible. The add, when it comes, won’t look like a marriage of convenience or a conference rushing to add for the sake of easing pressure.

For this very same reason, Aresco must remain outwardly confident at all times. He can’t come across as panicking or even as laid back. He must appear calm and in control if his conference is going to gain positive PR from this.

Almost any school could possibly be on the AAC presidents’ shortlist. Rutgers to the B1G, Missouri to the SEC, Louisville to the ACC, and TCU to the Big 12 all tell us that nearly any add can be justified...provided the add comes at a time and place chosen by the conference.

Finally, don’t be fooled by the “we don’t want to upset other conferences” talking point. It’s a justification, and no more. The AAC clearly didn’t have the future of the MVC in mind when it poached Witchita State.

And I think that is the key. When the AAC see's someone who actually adds value to the conference--they will have no problem pulling the trigger. Its also the biggest reason there is no rush to add anyone right now---there simply is no compelling "value adding" choice available at the buffet of current options.

...I’m not sure you even bothered to read what I posted apart from the last paragraph. Your belief about the add shows just how effective positive PR spin can be.

Given that the Witchita State addition:
1. Did nothing at all to reinforce your conference’s football profile despite that being by far the most important sport in terms of income generation.
2. Effectively lowered your conference’s academics and research profile.
3. Expanded the footprint in a relatively non-productive manner, with little hope of further expansion in this direction likely to be fruitful.

What stands out about the add is that Witchita State was winning a lot of basketball games, other programs interested in moving to the AAC without football weren’t, and the conference wanted to strengthen its basketball profile. Even at the expense of the negatives listed above.

What else stands out about the add? The AAC powers that be knew about Witchita State right from the beginning of the conference’s existence. They still waited to add them. Why? Because, while the PR wouldn’t have been negative if they’d been invited earlier, the positive PR gained from the AAC being seen to strengthen basketball was clearly valuable, to the extent that few seem aware of any negatives to the add.

A quick word about “adding value”. This phrase has a different, mostly subjective meaning to most AAC posters than it does to just about everyone else on these forums. In those hands, it’s used as a bullying tool to declare yourselves better than others...despite the obvious fact that at least 65 teams in FBS clearly have it better than you do. I have no doubt in my mind that the learned men who are actually making these decisions for the AAC have a more objective meaning to the phrase in mind.

Speaking objectively, UConn football didn’t offer the AAC much. You could make a decent argument for many programs that they would be an improvement over UConn, clear down to the likes of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Mount Union, and Mary Hardin-Baylor. On the other hand, unless you plan to invite Gonzaga, no one is going to give you anything remotely like the brand value you had in UConn. That reality shapes what the AAC is going to do, truly, but it’s not as if the conference was ever likely to do otherwise in the first place. Basketball is, at best, one third the value of football. For most conferences, it’s substantially less valuable in relative terms than that. Therefore, the AAC really just needs someone with one third or better the football brand value of UConn’s basketball brand value. Long streaks of bowl eligibility, recent ten win seasons, wins over cartel opponents who finished with winning records...those candidates are available. It’s just a matter of the AAC picking one.

That just leaves the final and, from a PR perspective, most important dynamic: time. If you want to maintain that hard won separation that the league so clearly values, then poaching one of their best simply isn’t good enough. Instead, you have to poach after a seemingly long process of deliberation. Make it look like you are adding to better the conference, not like you are adding because you need a member, and that will truly help create the idea that separation (rather than merely continuation) exists in the minds of the masses.

In a very real way, time is, in its way, even more important to this addition than on field performance is, or even who the add is. In the short term it is, that is.

I read it all---I just dont really agree and thought the last line you yourself typed was the real key. When a conference sees an asset which it believes will significantly improve the conference value/profile/performance/tv audience/media value---there is surprisingly little time wasted in between the recognition that an asset adds to the conference (assuming that asset wishes to join) and the addition of the school to the conference.

When it comes to Wichita---its important to remember---the AAC wasnt really looking to add anyone at the time. Wichita began shopping itself to alternative conferences. They even looked at adding football, thinking it might be needed to move to the MW or AAC. At that time, the key UConn/Temple/Memphis legs of AAC basketball were under performing. Additionally, conference SOS was becoming more and more important to collecting at large slots. Thus, the opportunity to add another high quality basketball school sort of fell into AAC's lap at a time when they realized that could really help the conference. Once they realized a basketball only school wouldn't really cost the other schools any money (Wichita isnt getting any media revenue until the new TV deal kicks in) and that the Shockers were primed to have a nice run the very next year---the deal was done---and done quickly.

I know you seem to have an issue with the word "value". Well, it is what it is. FWIW---nobody on this board is making the decision on who to add nor is anyone on this board assigning any "value" to any school that makes any difference in the real world.

But make no mistake, like it or not, there are a group of presidents--along with network honchos---who absolutely are looking at available schools and labeling them as "more" or "less" valuable. As I said before, if there were a choice that all the presidents and the network honchos all clearly saw as fantastically wonderful valuable super duper excellent addition---there would be no hemming and hawing about staying at 11. For instance, if BYU was interested---this would have been a done deal in 10 minutes. Thats yet another reason I dont really buy your "its all PR" theory.


Here is something you may be interested in----a week ago I would have said the chances of adding anyone by 2020 was close to zero. However, if these recent comments by Aresco accurately reflect the leagues positions---it leads me to believe that an addition is now not only possible by 2020---but probable. Apparently, the AAC does not want to play with uneven divisions. This is the first time Ive heard that. I think its possible they really didnt have anyone they wanted to add---but that may have changed recently (making me think those out of nowhere Air Force comments may be the smoke). If it is Air Force, I dont think it was PR that caused the delay. I think the AAC had to talk them into it---and I suspect the final domino may be that it become clear that the new MW deal isnt going to be what they were hoping for.


What happens if the NCAA denies the waiver?

“At that point, if you want to continue the championship game you have to add a team and go back to 12,” Aresco said. “What we said to the NCAA is that we would rather be in a position where we don’t have to raid a conference.”

The other opportunity would be to look at independents.

Here are the independents, other than Notre Dame, which has a partial deal with the Atlantic Coast Conference: Liberty, Army, Brigham Young, Massachusetts and New Mexico State.

Technically, the AAC could go to two divisions of six and five teams, but Aresco said the conference doesn’t want to do that, saying there are too many complications, and he didn’t feel there would be room for four non-conference games.

https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...91013.html

If the AAC is willing to take AFA as a full member they may very well be #12. If they don’t want their Olympic sports and are only willing to extend a football invite AFA is probably going to stay put.

The wildcard is if the WCC wants to move into Colorado with AFA and Denver as a traveling pair. My guess is that Gonzaga will say no to this.

(10-18-2019 09:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the AAC is willing to take AFA as a full member they may very well be #12. If they don’t want their Olympic sports and are only willing to extend a football invite AFA is probably going to stay put.

The wildcard is if the WCC wants to move into Colorado with AFA and Denver as a traveling pair. My guess is that Gonzaga will say no to this.

I was thinking maybe they go WAC, Big Sky, Summit, or even MVC. I know at one time they talked about moving to a conference where their olympic sports could be more competitive.

The WAC says yes but that’s a really crappy league and AFA won’t stoop that low

The Summit has a bit more potential. Denver as a travel partner would be nice. I just don’t know that AFA wants a bunch of trips to the Dakotas.

The Big Sky has a pretty strict policy that you have to play football in the conference.

The MVC is intriguing. If they can get over their internal private/public squabbles they might be able to work something out.

In ideal world, the Rocky Mountain region would have a MTZ analogue to the Patriot for them to go to but those types of schools simply don’t exist in the region at the DI level.

The American got the waiver for 2020 and 2021. Speculation over. UConn is out out out, and yes out.

(10-18-2019 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 11:55 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 11:58 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 12:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Agree. I think getting a waiver is almost a sure thing for the AAC---just not the waiver Aresco really wants. I guess that confidence he is exuding is just bravado gone haywire.

As to his other talking points strategy---I think you have to consider that Aresco is fighting a PR battle on several fronts at the same time. The P6 narrative means he has to maintain the AAC remains strong without UConn. Running around saying the conference is in shambles without UConn might help with the NCAA, but it would hurt his P6 narrative--at a time when the on the field play is giving the P6 thing some traction in the computer conference rankings.

I’m quoting this quote train for one very important reason: it’s the one that finally discusses what is really going on here.

I can promise you the powers that be in the AAC are not overly concerned with the pet theories and pie-in-the-sky desires of message board warriors.

As it has been since the conference settled on the “P6” campaign as the best way forward, the AAC is concerned with how this looks. They aren’t concerned with geography or identity or this team or that team. When the time comes to add someone, they will simply pick from a shortlist that probably only saw minor changes with UConn leaving.

And that time will come, if for no other reason than because the pressure, both internal and external, to add a replacement will be immense. That replacement will be someone willing to accept the conditions of AAC membership. That tends to rule out programs looking for a stable, long term home or programs looking for something they can get in their current situation.

The discussion here about Air Force being unhappy suggests y’all know this already. But it’s that very situation which reveals the outer limit of the AAC’s reach: the MWC, despite its known issues, is stable because of its geography, and the AAC doesn’t have enough advantages to easily overcome that advantage.

Thus, the AAC has one real path forward, and that is tobuy as much time as possible in order to spin the events as favorably as possible. The add, when it comes, won’t look like a marriage of convenience or a conference rushing to add for the sake of easing pressure.

For this very same reason, Aresco must remain outwardly confident at all times. He can’t come across as panicking or even as laid back. He must appear calm and in control if his conference is going to gain positive PR from this.

Almost any school could possibly be on the AAC presidents’ shortlist. Rutgers to the B1G, Missouri to the SEC, Louisville to the ACC, and TCU to the Big 12 all tell us that nearly any add can be justified...provided the add comes at a time and place chosen by the conference.

Finally, don’t be fooled by the “we don’t want to upset other conferences” talking point. It’s a justification, and no more. The AAC clearly didn’t have the future of the MVC in mind when it poached Witchita State.

And I think that is the key. When the AAC see's someone who actually adds value to the conference--they will have no problem pulling the trigger. Its also the biggest reason there is no rush to add anyone right now---there simply is no compelling "value adding" choice available at the buffet of current options. :cheers:

...I’m not sure you even bothered to read what I posted apart from the last paragraph. Your belief about the add shows just how effective positive PR spin can be.

Given that the Witchita State addition:
1. Did nothing at all to reinforce your conference’s football profile despite that being by far the most important sport in terms of income generation.
2. Effectively lowered your conference’s academics and research profile.
3. Expanded the footprint in a relatively non-productive manner, with little hope of further expansion in this direction likely to be fruitful.

What stands out about the add is that Witchita State was winning a lot of basketball games, other programs interested in moving to the AAC without football weren’t, and the conference wanted to strengthen its basketball profile. Even at the expense of the negatives listed above.

What else stands out about the add? The AAC powers that be knew about Witchita State right from the beginning of the conference’s existence. They still waited to add them. Why? Because, while the PR wouldn’t have been negative if they’d been invited earlier, the positive PR gained from the AAC being seen to strengthen basketball was clearly valuable, to the extent that few seem aware of any negatives to the add.

A quick word about “adding value”. This phrase has a different, mostly subjective meaning to most AAC posters than it does to just about everyone else on these forums. In those hands, it’s used as a bullying tool to declare yourselves better than others...despite the obvious fact that at least 65 teams in FBS clearly have it better than you do. I have no doubt in my mind that the learned men who are actually making these decisions for the AAC have a more objective meaning to the phrase in mind.

Speaking objectively, UConn football didn’t offer the AAC much. You could make a decent argument for many programs that they would be an improvement over UConn, clear down to the likes of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Mount Union, and Mary Hardin-Baylor. On the other hand, unless you plan to invite Gonzaga, no one is going to give you anything remotely like the brand value you had in UConn. That reality shapes what the AAC is going to do, truly, but it’s not as if the conference was ever likely to do otherwise in the first place. Basketball is, at best, one third the value of football. For most conferences, it’s substantially less valuable in relative terms than that. Therefore, the AAC really just needs someone with one third or better the football brand value of UConn’s basketball brand value. Long streaks of bowl eligibility, recent ten win seasons, wins over cartel opponents who finished with winning records...those candidates are available. It’s just a matter of the AAC picking one.

That just leaves the final and, from a PR perspective, most important dynamic: time. If you want to maintain that hard won separation that the league so clearly values, then poaching one of their best simply isn’t good enough. Instead, you have to poach after a seemingly long process of deliberation. Make it look like you are adding to better the conference, not like you are adding because you need a member, and that will truly help create the idea that separation (rather than merely continuation) exists in the minds of the masses.

In a very real way, time is, in its way, even more important to this addition than on field performance is, or even who the add is. In the short term it is, that is.

I read it all---I just dont really agree and thought the last line you yourself typed was the real key. When a conference sees an asset which it believes will significantly improve the conference value/profile/performance/tv audience/media value---there is surprisingly little time wasted in between the recognition that an asset adds to the conference (assuming that asset wishes to join) and the addition of the school to the conference.

When it comes to Wichita---its important to remember---the AAC wasnt really looking to add anyone at the time. Wichita began shopping itself to alternative conferences. They even looked at adding football, thinking it might be needed to move to the MW or AAC. At that time, the key UConn/Temple/Memphis legs of AAC basketball were under performing. Additionally, conference SOS was becoming more and more important to collecting at large slots. Thus, the opportunity to add another high quality basketball school sort of fell into AAC's lap at a time when they realized that could really help the conference. Once they realized a basketball only school wouldn't really cost the other schools any money (Wichita isnt getting any media revenue until the new TV deal kicks in) and that the Shockers were primed to have a nice run the very next year---the deal was done---and done quickly.

I know you seem to have an issue with the word "value". Well, it is what it is. FWIW---nobody on this board is making the decision on who to add nor is anyone on this board assigning any "value" to any school that makes any difference in the real world.

But make no mistake, like it or not, there are a group of presidents--along with network honchos---who absolutely are looking at available schools and labeling them as "more" or "less" valuable. As I said before, if there were a choice that all the presidents and the network honchos all clearly saw as fantastically wonderful valuable super duper excellent addition---there would be no hemming and hawing about staying at 11. For instance, if BYU was interested---this would have been a done deal in 10 minutes. Thats yet another reason I dont really buy your "its all PR" theory.


Here is something you may be interested in----a week ago I would have said the chances of adding anyone by 2020 was close to zero. However, if these recent comments by Aresco accurately reflect the leagues positions---it leads me to believe that an addition is now not only possible by 2020---but probable. Apparently, the AAC does not want to play with uneven divisions. This is the first time Ive heard that. I think its possible they really didnt have anyone they wanted to add---but that may have changed recently (making me think those out of nowhere Air Force comments may be the smoke). If it is Air Force, I dont think it was PR that caused the delay. I think the AAC had to talk them into it---and I suspect the final domino may be that it become clear that the new MW deal isnt going to be what they were hoping for.


What happens if the NCAA denies the waiver?

“At that point, if you want to continue the championship game you have to add a team and go back to 12,” Aresco said. “What we said to the NCAA is that we would rather be in a position where we don’t have to raid a conference.”

The other opportunity would be to look at independents.

Here are the independents, other than Notre Dame, which has a partial deal with the Atlantic Coast Conference: Liberty, Army, Brigham Young, Massachusetts and New Mexico State.

Technically, the AAC could go to two divisions of six and five teams, but Aresco said the conference doesn’t want to do that, saying there are too many complications, and he didn’t feel there would be room for four non-conference games.

https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...91013.html

BYU would be a clear win for the AAC. There would be no need for the league to spin it any other way. That doesn’t mean teams that aren’t giving up multiple home games against the cartel and regular games against longtime rivals aren’t worth inviting. It does mean the conference has to do more work justifying the choice. I’m not going to list the teams again, but I’ve already pointed out that just about anybody is justifiable, given how well the conference can spin the add as meeting perceived needs.

I was talking about the AAC’s timeline prior to adding Wichita State. You responded with Wichita State’s timeline before they joined the AAC. It doesn’t really explain away why the AAC waited for years to add Wichita State, but to each their own I guess.

The AAC presidents have their list. They’ve been checking it twice, thrice, and then checking it again. I’d be surprised if it was much longer than about four teams at this point. They still aren’t using it to tell a bunch of schools they aren’t worthy. That’s message board posters subjectively twisting an otherwise objective statement about justifying the financial worth of investing in a new school into something they can use against other posters. It goes hand in hand with my previous statements about the conference not investing in message board theories, but instead building an objective approach to replacing (or not replacing) UConn.

I don’t think Air Force is as much interested in the AAC as they are in getting eleven other universities to listen more to their gripes than they had been doing. There isn’t a league like the Patriot available, and I have problems believing most of the conferences out west are going to welcome Olympic sports teams that are going to finish last more than a few times. The financials aren’t necessarily entirely in the AAC’s favor here either, especially when you compute the cost of losing nearby rivals on the yearly schedule, plus entrance and exit fees.

In practice, that all adds up to an addition, likely all sports and nearer to the footprint, that needs some justification before beginning conference play...

A close reading of this pretty much reveals that I do indeed believe in relative value, but value applied objectively, which I believe is how the university presidents would do it. And, objectively speaking, the AAC is slowly being pushed toward making an add that doesn’t make everyone happy. The more time the conference has to spin things, the better that add will look in the long term...whether it wins anything in the conference or not.

(10-19-2019 04:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The American got the waiver for 2020 and 2021. Speculation over. UConn is out out out, and yes out.

This should have been apparent when UConn paid extra to leave early. Not sure why people insist on playing 5-D chess against themselves.

(10-20-2019 08:43 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  BYU would be a clear win for the AAC. There would be no need for the league to spin it any other way.

BYU would be a home run, yes. I’d love for that to happen, but I realized some time ago that it’s almost-definitely not going to happen. Oh, well.

Quote:I don’t think Air Force is as much interested in the AAC as they are in getting eleven other universities to listen more to their gripes than they had been doing. There isn’t a league like the Patriot available, and I have problems believing most of the conferences out west are going to welcome Olympic sports teams that are going to finish last more than a few times. The financials aren’t necessarily entirely in the AAC’s favor here either, especially when you compute the cost of losing nearby rivals on the yearly schedule, plus entrance and exit fees.

There is some truth in this, especially about the non-existence of a Patriot-League-equivalent in that part of the country. But “the financials” are not yet publicly-known. We’re waiting to find out what the MWC will put on the table in that aspect. If it’s “surprisingly good”, then AFA probably sucks it up and deals with it for another decade or so. But if it’s “surprisingly bad”.... well, we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?

Quote:the AAC is slowly being pushed toward making an add that doesn’t make everyone happy.

Probably true, but... life can be tough sometimes. The SEC wasn’t thrilled about adding Arkansas or Missouri. The B1G wasn’t doing cartwheels for Rutgers/Maryland, and the ACC wasn’t bursting with joy over Louisville — I know for a fact there was a lot of grumbling and groaning over that one. But you deal with it as best you can, and move on as best you can.

We will announce UConn’s replacement(s) in Spring 2021 (about 18 months from now), to take effect in Fall 2022. We will make the move(s) that cause the least friction among the existing members and gives us the greatest perceived flexibility going forward. The professional consultants and advisors will run the numbers and the chancellors/presidents/athletic directors will take it from there.

(10-20-2019 08:43 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 11:55 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 11:58 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  I’m quoting this quote train for one very important reason: it’s the one that finally discusses what is really going on here.

I can promise you the powers that be in the AAC are not overly concerned with the pet theories and pie-in-the-sky desires of message board warriors.

As it has been since the conference settled on the “P6” campaign as the best way forward, the AAC is concerned with how this looks. They aren’t concerned with geography or identity or this team or that team. When the time comes to add someone, they will simply pick from a shortlist that probably only saw minor changes with UConn leaving.

And that time will come, if for no other reason than because the pressure, both internal and external, to add a replacement will be immense. That replacement will be someone willing to accept the conditions of AAC membership. That tends to rule out programs looking for a stable, long term home or programs looking for something they can get in their current situation.

The discussion here about Air Force being unhappy suggests y’all know this already. But it’s that very situation which reveals the outer limit of the AAC’s reach: the MWC, despite its known issues, is stable because of its geography, and the AAC doesn’t have enough advantages to easily overcome that advantage.

Thus, the AAC has one real path forward, and that is tobuy as much time as possible in order to spin the events as favorably as possible. The add, when it comes, won’t look like a marriage of convenience or a conference rushing to add for the sake of easing pressure.

For this very same reason, Aresco must remain outwardly confident at all times. He can’t come across as panicking or even as laid back. He must appear calm and in control if his conference is going to gain positive PR from this.

Almost any school could possibly be on the AAC presidents’ shortlist. Rutgers to the B1G, Missouri to the SEC, Louisville to the ACC, and TCU to the Big 12 all tell us that nearly any add can be justified...provided the add comes at a time and place chosen by the conference.

Finally, don’t be fooled by the “we don’t want to upset other conferences” talking point. It’s a justification, and no more. The AAC clearly didn’t have the future of the MVC in mind when it poached Witchita State.

And I think that is the key. When the AAC see's someone who actually adds value to the conference--they will have no problem pulling the trigger. Its also the biggest reason there is no rush to add anyone right now---there simply is no compelling "value adding" choice available at the buffet of current options.

...I’m not sure you even bothered to read what I posted apart from the last paragraph. Your belief about the add shows just how effective positive PR spin can be.

Given that the Witchita State addition:
1. Did nothing at all to reinforce your conference’s football profile despite that being by far the most important sport in terms of income generation.
2. Effectively lowered your conference’s academics and research profile.
3. Expanded the footprint in a relatively non-productive manner, with little hope of further expansion in this direction likely to be fruitful.

What stands out about the add is that Witchita State was winning a lot of basketball games, other programs interested in moving to the AAC without football weren’t, and the conference wanted to strengthen its basketball profile. Even at the expense of the negatives listed above.

What else stands out about the add? The AAC powers that be knew about Witchita State right from the beginning of the conference’s existence. They still waited to add them. Why? Because, while the PR wouldn’t have been negative if they’d been invited earlier, the positive PR gained from the AAC being seen to strengthen basketball was clearly valuable, to the extent that few seem aware of any negatives to the add.

A quick word about “adding value”. This phrase has a different, mostly subjective meaning to most AAC posters than it does to just about everyone else on these forums. In those hands, it’s used as a bullying tool to declare yourselves better than others...despite the obvious fact that at least 65 teams in FBS clearly have it better than you do. I have no doubt in my mind that the learned men who are actually making these decisions for the AAC have a more objective meaning to the phrase in mind.

Speaking objectively, UConn football didn’t offer the AAC much. You could make a decent argument for many programs that they would be an improvement over UConn, clear down to the likes of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Mount Union, and Mary Hardin-Baylor. On the other hand, unless you plan to invite Gonzaga, no one is going to give you anything remotely like the brand value you had in UConn. That reality shapes what the AAC is going to do, truly, but it’s not as if the conference was ever likely to do otherwise in the first place. Basketball is, at best, one third the value of football. For most conferences, it’s substantially less valuable in relative terms than that. Therefore, the AAC really just needs someone with one third or better the football brand value of UConn’s basketball brand value. Long streaks of bowl eligibility, recent ten win seasons, wins over cartel opponents who finished with winning records...those candidates are available. It’s just a matter of the AAC picking one.

That just leaves the final and, from a PR perspective, most important dynamic: time. If you want to maintain that hard won separation that the league so clearly values, then poaching one of their best simply isn’t good enough. Instead, you have to poach after a seemingly long process of deliberation. Make it look like you are adding to better the conference, not like you are adding because you need a member, and that will truly help create the idea that separation (rather than merely continuation) exists in the minds of the masses.

In a very real way, time is, in its way, even more important to this addition than on field performance is, or even who the add is. In the short term it is, that is.

I read it all---I just dont really agree and thought the last line you yourself typed was the real key. When a conference sees an asset which it believes will significantly improve the conference value/profile/performance/tv audience/media value---there is surprisingly little time wasted in between the recognition that an asset adds to the conference (assuming that asset wishes to join) and the addition of the school to the conference.

When it comes to Wichita---its important to remember---the AAC wasnt really looking to add anyone at the time. Wichita began shopping itself to alternative conferences. They even looked at adding football, thinking it might be needed to move to the MW or AAC. At that time, the key UConn/Temple/Memphis legs of AAC basketball were under performing. Additionally, conference SOS was becoming more and more important to collecting at large slots. Thus, the opportunity to add another high quality basketball school sort of fell into AAC's lap at a time when they realized that could really help the conference. Once they realized a basketball only school wouldn't really cost the other schools any money (Wichita isnt getting any media revenue until the new TV deal kicks in) and that the Shockers were primed to have a nice run the very next year---the deal was done---and done quickly.

I know you seem to have an issue with the word "value". Well, it is what it is. FWIW---nobody on this board is making the decision on who to add nor is anyone on this board assigning any "value" to any school that makes any difference in the real world.

But make no mistake, like it or not, there are a group of presidents--along with network honchos---who absolutely are looking at available schools and labeling them as "more" or "less" valuable. As I said before, if there were a choice that all the presidents and the network honchos all clearly saw as fantastically wonderful valuable super duper excellent addition---there would be no hemming and hawing about staying at 11. For instance, if BYU was interested---this would have been a done deal in 10 minutes. Thats yet another reason I dont really buy your "its all PR" theory.


Here is something you may be interested in----a week ago I would have said the chances of adding anyone by 2020 was close to zero. However, if these recent comments by Aresco accurately reflect the leagues positions---it leads me to believe that an addition is now not only possible by 2020---but probable. Apparently, the AAC does not want to play with uneven divisions. This is the first time Ive heard that. I think its possible they really didnt have anyone they wanted to add---but that may have changed recently (making me think those out of nowhere Air Force comments may be the smoke). If it is Air Force, I dont think it was PR that caused the delay. I think the AAC had to talk them into it---and I suspect the final domino may be that it become clear that the new MW deal isnt going to be what they were hoping for.


What happens if the NCAA denies the waiver?

“At that point, if you want to continue the championship game you have to add a team and go back to 12,” Aresco said. “What we said to the NCAA is that we would rather be in a position where we don’t have to raid a conference.”

The other opportunity would be to look at independents.

Here are the independents, other than Notre Dame, which has a partial deal with the Atlantic Coast Conference: Liberty, Army, Brigham Young, Massachusetts and New Mexico State.

Technically, the AAC could go to two divisions of six and five teams, but Aresco said the conference doesn’t want to do that, saying there are too many complications, and he didn’t feel there would be room for four non-conference games.

https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...91013.html

BYU would be a clear win for the AAC. There would be no need for the league to spin it any other way. That doesn’t mean teams that aren’t giving up multiple home games against the cartel and regular games against longtime rivals aren’t worth inviting. It does mean the conference has to do more work justifying the choice. I’m not going to list the teams again, but I’ve already pointed out that just about anybody is justifiable, given how well the conference can spin the add as meeting perceived needs.

I was talking about the AAC’s timeline prior to adding Wichita State. You responded with Wichita State’s timeline before they joined the AAC. It doesn’t really explain away why the AAC waited for years to add Wichita State, but to each their own I guess.

The AAC presidents have their list. They’ve been checking it twice, thrice, and then checking it again. I’d be surprised if it was much longer than about four teams at this point. They still aren’t using it to tell a bunch of schools they aren’t worthy. That’s message board posters subjectively twisting an otherwise objective statement about justifying the financial worth of investing in a new school into something they can use against other posters. It goes hand in hand with my previous statements about the conference not investing in message board theories, but instead building an objective approach to replacing (or not replacing) UConn.

I don’t think Air Force is as much interested in the AAC as they are in getting eleven other universities to listen more to their gripes than they had been doing. There isn’t a league like the Patriot available, and I have problems believing most of the conferences out west are going to welcome Olympic sports teams that are going to finish last more than a few times. The financials aren’t necessarily entirely in the AAC’s favor here either, especially when you compute the cost of losing nearby rivals on the yearly schedule, plus entrance and exit fees.

In practice, that all adds up to an addition, likely all sports and nearer to the footprint, that needs some justification before beginning conference play...

A close reading of this pretty much reveals that I do indeed believe in relative value, but value applied objectively, which I believe is how the university presidents would do it. And, objectively speaking, the AAC is slowly being pushed toward making an add that doesn’t make everyone happy. The more time the conference has to spin things, the better that add will look in the long term...whether it wins anything in the conference or not.

Honestly---I think your kinda splitting hairs. I dont think the AAC's long time line has a thing to do with PR. As for Wichita, the conference didnt add them at inception because it didnt think it needed them. It thought the UConn/Memphis/Temple/Cini core would be enough. Later when that core underperformed, and Wichita began shopping themselves, the conditions to add them became ripe. That said, I think we agree on most of what going on.

As you said, if there was a clear value added pick to get back to 12, they would have already been added and there would be no reason for PR. So, that, by your own admission means the AAC presidents have looked at the remaining list of teams who have interest in joining and dont see any that are not clearly dilutive to the conference (by their objective measures).

So, with the waiver, the conference has bought themselves 2 years to get a NCAA rule change that will allow FBS conferences (with 11+ members) to have a divisionless CCG with an 8 game conference schedule. In other words, the 2 years is to AVOID adding a team they dont want.

If that doesnt work---the AAC will reassess the available universe of teams that would say yes to an AAC invite. Hopefully, by then there will be at least one school that is a additive to the AAC as a full member. If not, the conference presidents will objectively pick the least dilutive school from the available options. If the options are similar to now---I hope they use the split option to maximize the positive impact of that 12th spot. Pick a good football program as a "football only" school and add VCU as a 'non-football" member. That would go a long way toward creating a pretty decent 12th member that no single school from the available options could come close to matching.

As for PR if they are forced to take a team they dont want---it will be limited to a press conference announcing the new member as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its the conference version of national signing day. lol...I have yet to ever hear a coach talk about how bad his newly signed recruiting class sucks. Same goes for a conference announcing its newest school.

Let's play this out. Is there any reason to believe that the P5 would want to have division-less conference set-up for football? What parameters have since changed when the P5 argued in favor of having divisions for a round-robin style of play?

The P5 would only agree to such a change if it benefited them. It would not change the conditions of the landscape without some advantage to them, and it certainly would not pass a rule only out of the misplaced and misconceived notion that it would not affect them. Would the P5 benefit from moving towards division-less football, and maybe just securing a handful of locked-in rivalry games with a rotated-based schedule annually?

(10-21-2019 09:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Is there any reason to believe that the P5 would want to have division-less conference set-up for football?

”The P5” is not of one mind on that question. Some of them love the Status-Quo and wouldn’t change a thing about their alignment/schedule. Some others... not so much.

(10-21-2019 09:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Would the P5 benefit from moving towards division-less football, and maybe just securing a handful of locked-in rivalry games with a rotated-based schedule annually?

Don't know if “the P5” would benefit from that or not. Some individual members of the P5 leagues (I’m thinking of ACC and SEC in particular) believe they would benefit.

(10-21-2019 10:21 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 09:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Would the P5 benefit from moving towards division-less football, and maybe just securing a handful of locked-in rivalry games with a rotated-based schedule annually?

Don't know if “the P5” would benefit from that or not. Some individual members of the P5 leagues (I’m thinking of ACC and SEC in particular) believe they would benefit.

I know the Big10 was contemplating getting rid of divisions very recently. The way I see it, why wouldnt the P5 like the idea of having a second option. The main reason it might not work for the P5 is a divisionless CCG with an 8 game schedule means no rund robin. In other words, your going to miss a few teams every year and, assuming there is a requirement for an orderly rotation through the conference---that means certain years big annual rivalry game would not be held. Thats not going to work for the P5. So, for any divisionless CCG rule to work for a P5---it has to have the ability to allow for annual rivalry games to continue every year.

(10-21-2019 10:21 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 09:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Would the P5 benefit from moving towards division-less football, and maybe just securing a handful of locked-in rivalry games with a rotated-based schedule annually?

Don't know if “the P5” would benefit from that or not. Some individual members of the P5 leagues (I’m thinking of ACC and SEC in particular) believe they would benefit.

Put another way, several of the P5 conferences would prefer to have had the opportunity for their top 2 teams (independent of division) play in the conference championship game instead of a much weaker opponent being there. Just off the top of my head, the Pac-12 would have much preferred to have had Oregon and Stanford play in the championship games in 2012, 2013 and 2015 instead of sending the weaker South champion to that game. It might have cost Oregon a shot at the national title instead of the LSU/Bama rematch. The B1G would certainly have rather had Penn State and Ohio State (or Michigan) play in some of those recent championship games instead of Northwestern last year or Wisconsin (when it almost cost Ohio State a playoff bid). And of course the ACC can't be thrilled with having to pit the Coastal champ in their title game when they'd much rather have Clemson face the 2nd best team instead of essentially a .500 Pitt team last year. So I think a case can be made that it would, in fact, benefit the P5 conferences to be able to simply match up their best 2 teams every year instead of forced divisions. Hell, I think that's one of the main reasons the Big XII fought so hard to eliminate the 12 team rule that was in place until a few years ago. To me, the only conference who might be opposed is the SEC. Because they can use the whole "second best team didn't even get into the title game" argument instead of having one of their two best take a hit in the championship game.

Now, do I think the P5 schools are GOING to be in favor? Who knows. But I think a case can be made for them to do so.

USFFan

(10-21-2019 09:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Let's play this out. Is there any reason to believe that the P5 would want to have division-less conference set-up for football? What parameters have since changed when the P5 argued in favor of having divisions for a round-robin style of play?

The P5 would only agree to such a change if it benefited them. It would not change the conditions of the landscape without some advantage to them, and it certainly would not pass a rule only out of the misplaced and misconceived notion that it would not affect them. Would the P5 benefit from moving towards division-less football, and maybe just securing a handful of locked-in rivalry games with a rotated-based schedule annually?

I simply dont think the P5 are likely monolithic on this issue. For instance, at a minimum---we know that the ACC and Big10 both would be interested in at least having this as an option. The reality is it may help some P5's and be of no value to other P5's.