(10-18-2019 04:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  [quote='TIGERCITY' pid='16379658' dateline='1571428630']
... the championship game waiver requested by the AAC is being made only for the 2020 and 21 seasons. If granted the AAC still has to either add a team or drop a team according to the article. First time I've heard that the request being made would be a temporary waiver only.

Link

Very interesting.

First, Aresco admits that it is possible that the waiver may not be granted. Why not? Perhaps because the waiver requested seeks an exception to the rules: (1) Play a round-robin schedule, or (2) Shift to two unbalanced divisions. The NCAA may deny a waiver because they don't want to set a precedent. They established two options, not three, and the AAC is technically capable of playing two unbalanced divisions.

Next, why wouldn't Aresco/AAC want two unbalanced divisions? The article states:

"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."

Huh? Too many complications? Seems like a bogus excuse, b/c it isn't rocket science. A computer program could be written to handle the complexities in about an hour.

No room for four non-conference games? Makes no sense, because if there's room with 12 conference teams, there is just as much room with 11 conference teams.

Maybe the AAC is claiming a hardship waiver, but there is no real hardship here.

============

Most interestingly, the fact that only a 1 or 2 year waiver is being sought is either very unusual or very "telling." Most likely, it is providing us a clue as to the actual discussions behind the scenes, especially given that the AAC would either have to cut a school or expand back to 12 members.

1) Cut a team: Extremely unlikely to happen. It would require the approval of ESPN, which might resist to avoid negative publicity, and it would be extremely difficult to cut any school in good standing. If there are no NCAA rule violations, there may not be any legal justification for cutting a school.

2) Expand back to 12 teams: Much more likely to happen. ESPN would no doubt approve adding members to replace the loss of Conn's market share. They might even provide some assistance to facilitate the process. Moreover, the 12 and 14/15 member P5 conferences benefit from the stability of having at least 12 members. The only 10 member P5 is considered to be the least stable and at the greatest risk of break up or disintegration. If the AAC wants to be considered a power conference, it's more likely to achieve that status with either 12 or 14 members.

===========

Requesting a temporary waiver suggests that an addition or subtraction will be made within the next two years. Since a subtraction is extremely unlikely, it appears that the AAC's plan is most likely to expand back to 12 teams in FB and MBB/olympic sports.

In fact, one can practically take another predictive step: The news in this article suggests that the AAC is strongly considering the possibility of adding a member(s) for FB and MBB by 2022, at the latest.

===========

What else is likely to be going on behind the scenes?

There have been and will be universities contacting the AAC to "apply" for membership in the AAC and discussing these matters.

AAC members have been and will continue to discuss the various options amongst themselves, and either have or will express(ed) their views to Aresco's office. At some point a short list will be drawn up, and a vote will probably have to be taken within the next 1.5 years to select new member(s).

Conversations with potential members and ESPN will gradually evolve into formal negotiations, and there will probably be an announcement of new FB and BB/olympic member(s) by the spring of 2022, or potentially sooner.

(10-18-2019 07:03 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:27 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  Imho, UAB would be a good choice after BYU, Boise, and so on.

With two years of AAC money and recruiting, UAB would be a ranked team in one of the two sports at least. Their fanbase and attendance would double. It has history with most of the conference and academically is a Tier 1 university ranked ahead of Alabama.

C'mon man. UAB played all these teams just 6 years ago and nobody was showing up. They are coming off a league championship and are 5-1 right now---they barely drew 23K last week. That tells you what their potential high water mark is.

If we refuse to play uneven divisions and MUST add a team---it would be moronic to add any current CUSA, Sunbelt, or MAC team as a full member. There is no single member avilable from any of those conference's who is good at basketball AND football. There is no member from any of those conferences that adds value as a full member of the AAC. Here are our smartest options--

1) BYU, AF, or Army as football only members + VCU (non-football)

2) VCU and let UConn stay for 2 years (gives us the same 2 year breathing room as the waiver, but without a 100 year commitment to the very unexciting buffet of options currently available).

3) If we absolutely MUST add a team, and we refuse to UConn be a 2 year temporary bandage---then add VCU and pick a CUSA/SB/MAC school as a "football only" member. That way, you just have to find a school that's pretty decent at football and the rest of their programs dont matter. The AAC ends up with a solid football program that at least is not a UConn type anchor---Plus we get a top tier basketball program in VCU.

Bascially, given the options---the best way to add value is with a split bid. Given the choices, adding any full member is a mistake.

...says fan of school that was drawing 23k I'm CUSA....?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Said the fan of a school drawing 18K. Look, Houston wasnt drawing 23K when we were 5-1 and coming off a conference championship. When Houston was coming off a 13-1 year and had things rolling in 2016, the stadium was selling out or getting close. Context is important--the point being if you cant draw when things are really rolling---your ceiling is probably pretty limited.

(10-18-2019 07:25 PM)Poseidon Wrote:  The problem with UAB is Alabama will not let UAB be too successful. The ams could be said for a number of teams in the south that have glass ceilings because SEC schools political power. Evidence A is the Alabama political clout not allowing UAB to hire Jimbo Fisher when it was a done deal.

Wrong!

Choose another category.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

After reading this thread, it becomes clear to me that the best win-win is to let UConn football stay for two more years. The AAC can be clear that they are giving us the boot in football after two years. In the interim, we get some breathing room to patch together an Indy schedule and the AAC gets time to really evaluate who is/are the best addition/additions. That way they can truly find someone who fits best for the long run based on performance and to watch the new TV partners evolve to gauge which program will make everyone more money in the long run.

Aresco can make UConn football eat a little crow in a press release now and then use the two years to make the right decision.

(10-18-2019 07:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:03 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:27 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  Imho, UAB would be a good choice after BYU, Boise, and so on.

With two years of AAC money and recruiting, UAB would be a ranked team in one of the two sports at least. Their fanbase and attendance would double. It has history with most of the conference and academically is a Tier 1 university ranked ahead of Alabama.

C'mon man. UAB played all these teams just 6 years ago and nobody was showing up. They are coming off a league championship and are 5-1 right now---they barely drew 23K last week. That tells you what their potential high water mark is.

If we refuse to play uneven divisions and MUST add a team---it would be moronic to add any current CUSA, Sunbelt, or MAC team as a full member. There is no single member avilable from any of those conference's who is good at basketball AND football. There is no member from any of those conferences that adds value as a full member of the AAC. Here are our smartest options--

1) BYU, AF, or Army as football only members + VCU (non-football)

2) VCU and let UConn stay for 2 years (gives us the same 2 year breathing room as the waiver, but without a 100 year commitment to the very unexciting buffet of options currently available).

3) If we absolutely MUST add a team, and we refuse to UConn be a 2 year temporary bandage---then add VCU and pick a CUSA/SB/MAC school as a "football only" member. That way, you just have to find a school that's pretty decent at football and the rest of their programs dont matter. The AAC ends up with a solid football program that at least is not a UConn type anchor---Plus we get a top tier basketball program in VCU.

Bascially, given the options---the best way to add value is with a split bid. Given the choices, adding any full member is a mistake.

...says fan of school that was drawing 23k I'm CUSA....?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Said the fan of a school drawing 18K. Look, Houston wasnt drawing 23K when we were 5-1 and coming off a conference championship. When things were rolling, the stadium was seeing some sell outs. Look, context is important. My point is, you cant draw when things are really rolling---your ceiling is probably pretty limited.

There are any host of reasons why city schools draw from 17k - 40k. You of all people know this.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-18-2019 07:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  After reading this thread, it becomes clear to me that the best win-win is to let UConn football stay for two more years. The AAC can be clear that they are giving us the boot in football after two years. In the interim, we get some breathing room to patch together an Indy schedule and the AAC gets time to really evaluate who is/are the best addition/additions. That way they can truly find someone who fits best for the long run based on performance and to watch the new TV partners evolve to gauge which program will make everyone more money in the long run.

Aresco can make UConn football eat a little crow in a press release now and then use the two years to make the right decision.

Oh, that would be the "best" huh? How in the world is that a "win-win." It's a "win" for UConn FB perhaps, but it is not a "win" for the AAC. And, it would keep us in an unstable and "hybrid" configuration.

The real "win-win" is that UConn moves on with no hard feelings and the AAC gets the two-year waiver to consider the next move. That's the real "win-win" here...we all get what we want.

(10-18-2019 07:37 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:03 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:27 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  Imho, UAB would be a good choice after BYU, Boise, and so on.

With two years of AAC money and recruiting, UAB would be a ranked team in one of the two sports at least. Their fanbase and attendance would double. It has history with most of the conference and academically is a Tier 1 university ranked ahead of Alabama.

C'mon man. UAB played all these teams just 6 years ago and nobody was showing up. They are coming off a league championship and are 5-1 right now---they barely drew 23K last week. That tells you what their potential high water mark is.

If we refuse to play uneven divisions and MUST add a team---it would be moronic to add any current CUSA, Sunbelt, or MAC team as a full member. There is no single member avilable from any of those conference's who is good at basketball AND football. There is no member from any of those conferences that adds value as a full member of the AAC. Here are our smartest options--

1) BYU, AF, or Army as football only members + VCU (non-football)

2) VCU and let UConn stay for 2 years (gives us the same 2 year breathing room as the waiver, but without a 100 year commitment to the very unexciting buffet of options currently available).

3) If we absolutely MUST add a team, and we refuse to UConn be a 2 year temporary bandage---then add VCU and pick a CUSA/SB/MAC school as a "football only" member. That way, you just have to find a school that's pretty decent at football and the rest of their programs dont matter. The AAC ends up with a solid football program that at least is not a UConn type anchor---Plus we get a top tier basketball program in VCU.

Bascially, given the options---the best way to add value is with a split bid. Given the choices, adding any full member is a mistake.

...says fan of school that was drawing 23k I'm CUSA....?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Said the fan of a school drawing 18K. Look, Houston wasnt drawing 23K when we were 5-1 and coming off a conference championship. When things were rolling, the stadium was seeing some sell outs. Look, context is important. My point is, you cant draw when things are really rolling---your ceiling is probably pretty limited.

There are any host of reasons why city schools draw from 17k - 40k. You of all people know this.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Whats your point? If they were that attractive they would have been added already. Their poor support is one reason 'Bama was able swing killing their program a few years ago. It is what it is. UAB, with Bama dominating the state and having significant control over the UAB program, will always have a very limited upside. That said, UAB isnt going anywhere. If it turns out the new stadium causes the program to really take off and support grows and grows---you can add them in 4 years. They will still be there.

If your forced to take a SB/CUSA/MAC program---take Marshall or S Miss or LaTech as a football only. Grab VCU as a non-football addition--and the league performance will be better off coming out of the UConn exit than they were before.

(10-18-2019 07:44 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  After reading this thread, it becomes clear to me that the best win-win is to let UConn football stay for two more years. The AAC can be clear that they are giving us the boot in football after two years. In the interim, we get some breathing room to patch together an Indy schedule and the AAC gets time to really evaluate who is/are the best addition/additions. That way they can truly find someone who fits best for the long run based on performance and to watch the new TV partners evolve to gauge which program will make everyone more money in the long run.

Aresco can make UConn football eat a little crow in a press release now and then use the two years to make the right decision.

Oh, that would be the "best" huh? How in the world is that a "win-win." It's a "win" for UConn FB perhaps, but it is not a "win" for the AAC. And, it would keep us in an unstable and "hybrid" configuration.

The real "win-win" is that UConn moves on with no hard feelings and the AAC gets the two-year waiver to consider the next move. That's the real "win-win" here...we all get what we want.

You are a real treasure.

Xavier got what they want, too... a better schedule in basketball and a stronger recruiting pitch than Cincinnati will have going forward.

I hope that one NY6 slot for like 60+ “G5” teams works well for you all. #choices

(10-18-2019 05:08 PM)Agust Wrote:  i would be for subtraction. but who would be the one voted out?

I would support subtraction. Addition by subtraction. Tulsa.

(10-18-2019 07:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  After reading this thread, it becomes clear to me that the best win-win is to let UConn football stay for two more years. The AAC can be clear that they are giving us the boot in football after two years. In the interim, we get some breathing room to patch together an Indy schedule and the AAC gets time to really evaluate who is/are the best addition/additions. That way they can truly find someone who fits best for the long run based on performance and to watch the new TV partners evolve to gauge which program will make everyone more money in the long run.

Aresco can make UConn football eat a little crow in a press release now and then use the two years to make the right decision.

This reminded me of Escape (The Piña Colada Song).

Maybe UConn really is the perfect fit after all

(10-18-2019 07:59 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 05:08 PM)Agust Wrote:  i would be for subtraction. but who would be the one voted out?

I would support subtraction. Addition by subtraction. Tulsa.

Feeding members to the wolves is just one of the reasons I can’t stay away.

(10-18-2019 08:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  After reading this thread, it becomes clear to me that the best win-win is to let UConn football stay for two more years. The AAC can be clear that they are giving us the boot in football after two years. In the interim, we get some breathing room to patch together an Indy schedule and the AAC gets time to really evaluate who is/are the best addition/additions. That way they can truly find someone who fits best for the long run based on performance and to watch the new TV partners evolve to gauge which program will make everyone more money in the long run.

Aresco can make UConn football eat a little crow in a press release now and then use the two years to make the right decision.

This reminded me of Escape (The Piña Colada Song).

Maybe UConn really is the perfect fit after all

It really is the best short term option. Too bad others here can’t admit the beauty of it.

(10-18-2019 07:44 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  After reading this thread, it becomes clear to me that the best win-win is to let UConn football stay for two more years. The AAC can be clear that they are giving us the boot in football after two years. In the interim, we get some breathing room to patch together an Indy schedule and the AAC gets time to really evaluate who is/are the best addition/additions. That way they can truly find someone who fits best for the long run based on performance and to watch the new TV partners evolve to gauge which program will make everyone more money in the long run.

Aresco can make UConn football eat a little crow in a press release now and then use the two years to make the right decision.

Oh, that would be the "best" huh? How in the world is that a "win-win." It's a "win" for UConn FB perhaps, but it is not a "win" for the AAC. And, it would keep us in an unstable and "hybrid" configuration.

The real "win-win" is that UConn moves on with no hard feelings and the AAC gets the two-year waiver to consider the next move. That's the real "win-win" here...we all get what we want.

Here's the thing---right now stability is nice---but its really not something we need to worry about. The reason it doesnt matter is this league will never be "stable" as long as every member is trying to angle their way into a P5 conference. Until the AAC is a legit power conference, stability is unattainable.

So the focus of the league should be improving the league's performance, it's profile, and it's fan support so that the league cannot be ignored by major outlets. Thats how a league becomes a more valuable media property---and its how it eventually becomes a power conference. If the hybrid helps us get there---then we need to utilize it. Here is something to ponder----In six short years we are going to be walking into the CFP office to lobby for out own "contract bowl". We need to be very careful about who we add.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ODU's @BJStith2 SENDS VCU PACKING after Break Away DUNK!! Monarchs Win 62-52!!!<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GoMonarchs?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GoMonarchs</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ODU?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ODU</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ODUSports?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ODUSports</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ODumbb?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ODUMBB</a> <a href="https://t.co/Jv4Jtx5y7C">pic.twitter.com/Jv4Jtx5y7C</a></p>&mdash; 7CitiesHooptape.com (@7CitiesHooptape) <a href="https://twitter.com/7CitiesHooptape/status/1067989989018017793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 29, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We are VCU’s equal and long-time rival - the only difference is we added football and they went all-in w/basketball (w/no interest in football). Our basketball program just needs a higher platform - VCU moved to the A10 from the CAA - and we moved from the CAA to CUSA. We won the CAA championship against VCU the year they went to the Final Four as an at-large bid, and we lost to Butler on a buzzer-beater in the dance.

(10-18-2019 07:59 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 05:08 PM)Agust Wrote:  i would be for subtraction. but who would be the one voted out?

I would support subtraction. Addition by subtraction. Tulsa.

I'd be in favor of voting East Carolina out. Historically a really bad program in basketball they originally were a football only invite. Now they suck in football to. About the only school where you can say getting rid of them would make both AAC football and basketball better.

(10-18-2019 06:27 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  Imho, UAB would be a good choice after BYU, Boise, and so on.

With two years of AAC money and recruiting, UAB would be a ranked team in one of the two sports at least. Their fanbase and attendance would double. It has history with most of the conference and academically is a Tier 1 university ranked ahead of Alabama.

I would consider UAB. They have a good history with Memphis, Tulane and Cincinnati. Great fans, travel well, they check all the boxes. New OC football stadium is being built too !!

(10-18-2019 08:23 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:59 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 05:08 PM)Agust Wrote:  i would be for subtraction. but who would be the one voted out?

I would support subtraction. Addition by subtraction. Tulsa.

I'd be in favor of voting East Carolina out. Historically a really bad program in basketball they originally were a football only invite. Now they suck in football to. About the only school where you can say getting rid of them would make both AAC football and basketball better.

UConn would gladly welcome ECU as a fellow Indy. They are close enough and have a great game day atmosphere. I would love them on our yearly schedule. Truthfully, ECU could actually flourish as an Indy (unlike UMass and probably UConn).

(10-18-2019 08:23 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:59 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 05:08 PM)Agust Wrote:  i would be for subtraction. but who would be the one voted out?

I would support subtraction. Addition by subtraction. Tulsa.

I'd be in favor of voting East Carolina out. Historically a really bad program in basketball they originally were a football only invite. Now they suck in football to. About the only school where you can say getting rid of them would make both AAC football and basketball better.

While I agree ECU has been a consistent bottom dweller in hoops, it's not as if Tulsa has exactly made a mark in our league either. Football drives the bus and I have more faith in ECU to turn it around with their 50,000 seat stadium and planning upgrades than a small private school like Tulsa. ECU has beaten P5 programs since joining the AAC. Tulsa has not. Tulsa is 25-43 since joining the American. ECU is 25-42. A wash.

(10-18-2019 07:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:37 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:03 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  C'mon man. UAB played all these teams just 6 years ago and nobody was showing up. They are coming off a league championship and are 5-1 right now---they barely drew 23K last week. That tells you what their potential high water mark is.

If we refuse to play uneven divisions and MUST add a team---it would be moronic to add any current CUSA, Sunbelt, or MAC team as a full member. There is no single member avilable from any of those conference's who is good at basketball AND football. There is no member from any of those conferences that adds value as a full member of the AAC. Here are our smartest options--

1) BYU, AF, or Army as football only members + VCU (non-football)

2) VCU and let UConn stay for 2 years (gives us the same 2 year breathing room as the waiver, but without a 100 year commitment to the very unexciting buffet of options currently available).

3) If we absolutely MUST add a team, and we refuse to UConn be a 2 year temporary bandage---then add VCU and pick a CUSA/SB/MAC school as a "football only" member. That way, you just have to find a school that's pretty decent at football and the rest of their programs dont matter. The AAC ends up with a solid football program that at least is not a UConn type anchor---Plus we get a top tier basketball program in VCU.

Bascially, given the options---the best way to add value is with a split bid. Given the choices, adding any full member is a mistake.

...says fan of school that was drawing 23k I'm CUSA....?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Said the fan of a school drawing 18K. Look, Houston wasnt drawing 23K when we were 5-1 and coming off a conference championship. When things were rolling, the stadium was seeing some sell outs. Look, context is important. My point is, you cant draw when things are really rolling---your ceiling is probably pretty limited.

There are any host of reasons why city schools draw from 17k - 40k. You of all people know this.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Whats your point? If they were that attractive they would have been added already. Their poor support is one reason 'Bama was able swing killing their program a few years ago. It is what it is. UAB, with Bama dominating the state and having significant control over the UAB program, will always have a very limited upside. That said, UAB isnt going anywhere. If it turns out the new stadium causes the program to really take off and support grows and grows---you can add them in 4 years. They will still be there.

If your forced to take a SB/CUSA/MAC program---take Marshall or S Miss or LaTech as a football only. Grab VCU as a non-football addition--and the league performance will be better off coming out of the UConn exit than they were before.

23k is not "poor support" for G5 and my point is in a new stadium and with the right opponents they will play up to their competition. You cannot expect them to get 45k for Charlotte any more than anyone expected you to sell out your then 33k seat stadium for GSU in 2011.

Bringing Bama into this is smokescreens. Anyone who has followed UABs saga realized that the BOT and Bama will never be a problem for UAB again.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-18-2019 06:27 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  Imho, UAB would be a good choice after BYU, Boise, and so on.

With two years of AAC money and recruiting, UAB would be a ranked team in one of the two sports at least. Their fanbase and attendance would double. It has history with most of the conference and academically is a Tier 1 university ranked ahead of Alabama.

Definitely a hard NO for UAB