Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
Author Message
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,353
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #81
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 08:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:29 AM)panama Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:14 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I do think UAB ends up being #12, but I wholeheartedly agree that the AAC should wait out it’s waiver period and see what the potential candidates end up doing. I cannot envision Army, Air Force, Boise State or BYU (each whom should be considered top candidates) coming.

Personally, I am confused why there is so much resistance to a UAB but general acceptance to a Colorado State. UAB is in a better football recruiting area, both have new state of art stadiums, UAB has more successful basketball history, both are on same tier in national academic rankings and UAB is within the AAC footprint (which is already spread out as is). Colorado State would force a team west, where UAB wouldn’t, assuming divisions are kept of course.
Assume certain things all things being equal.

#12 ...

Will look culturally like the majority of the schools in the conference. Presidents decide and they like things they can quantify and understand. Most of the schools are city school large research universities or city school privates. The majority are Carnegie and USNWR Tier I.

Will not be a western school. They will all have their individual reasons but you can summarize it as the money is not there to justify leaving rivals behind and to increase travel. Ask yourself, will school X's fans care about seeing a home game against school Y from two timezones or 3000 miles away.

Will not be in a city or state with a current member. This would seem to be obvious.

Will not be a Service Academy. One is comfortable in Independence and the other is a Western school. If that theory had legs and there was mutual interest we wouldnt be having this discussion. They would have been added the day after UConn announced.



When you take that and maybe a couple of other obvious factors into account you can quickly come up with a short list.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I disagree with your Western component until we see what the MWC TV deal is. If it is awful, then the monetary reasons may be there. But I otherwise agree with your assessment of the characteristics of the school. That pretty much leaves us with (in alphabetical order):

- Air Force
- Buffalo
- Colorado State [technically a small outlier due to its non-metro location]
- FIU
- Georgia State
- New Mexico
- Rice
- UAB
- UMass [technically a small outlier due to its non-metro location]
- UTSA

Somewhat lesser fits institutionally:

- Charlotte
- FAU
- North Texas
- Old Dominion
- UTEP

Those are really the schools that fit the AAC profile as urban Carnegie I public research universities with the exception of Rice and Air Force who match the other institutional profiles. Unless we go some wildcard route like the FB-only, the next member is almost certainly in that list.
FIU when there are already two FL schools?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
10-22-2019 09:15 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,005
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #82
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 08:37 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 06:51 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I highly doubt UAB gets the 12th spot.

Yes, UAB will be playing in a new stadium, but I'm almost certain that it is the city's stadium. I honestly don't know of UAB building any new facilities. Plus, UAB isn't among the top programs in C-USA in athletic budget or coaches salaries, and far from being one of the best among G5 candidates.

WTF are you talking about dude?

According to the most recent numbers, UAB ranks 7th in C-USA in athletic budget...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

UAB ranks 2nd in C-USA in head football coaches salary... (which is higher than I thought it would be, so congrats.)

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

And, UAB ranks 9th in C-USA in assistant football coaches salary pool.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salarie.../assistant

And, like I stated Birmingham is building a new stadium. Yes, UAB will be playing there, but it is not their stadium. I believe the city will be hosting the World Games there before UAB gets use of the facility.

https://alabamanewscenter.com/2018/12/13...dium-bjcc/
10-22-2019 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,353
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #83
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 09:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 08:37 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 06:51 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I highly doubt UAB gets the 12th spot.

Yes, UAB will be playing in a new stadium, but I'm almost certain that it is the city's stadium. I honestly don't know of UAB building any new facilities. Plus, UAB isn't among the top programs in C-USA in athletic budget or coaches salaries, and far from being one of the best among G5 candidates.

WTF are you talking about dude?

According to the most recent numbers, UAB ranks 7th in C-USA in athletic budget...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

UAB ranks 2nd in C-USA in head football coaches salary... (which is higher than I thought it would be, so congrats.)

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

And, UAB ranks 9th in C-USA in assistant football coaches salary pool.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salarie.../assistant

And, like I stated Birmingham is building a new stadium. Yes, UAB will be playing there, but it is not their stadium. I believe the city will be hosting the World Games there before UAB gets use of the facility.

https://alabamanewscenter.com/2018/12/13...dium-bjcc/
They will be the primary tenant.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
10-22-2019 09:42 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,693
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 314
I Root For: UCF/Tulsa
Location:
Post: #84
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 09:15 PM)panama Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 08:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:29 AM)panama Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:14 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I do think UAB ends up being #12, but I wholeheartedly agree that the AAC should wait out it’s waiver period and see what the potential candidates end up doing. I cannot envision Army, Air Force, Boise State or BYU (each whom should be considered top candidates) coming.

Personally, I am confused why there is so much resistance to a UAB but general acceptance to a Colorado State. UAB is in a better football recruiting area, both have new state of art stadiums, UAB has more successful basketball history, both are on same tier in national academic rankings and UAB is within the AAC footprint (which is already spread out as is). Colorado State would force a team west, where UAB wouldn’t, assuming divisions are kept of course.
Assume certain things all things being equal.

#12 ...

Will look culturally like the majority of the schools in the conference. Presidents decide and they like things they can quantify and understand. Most of the schools are city school large research universities or city school privates. The majority are Carnegie and USNWR Tier I.

Will not be a western school. They will all have their individual reasons but you can summarize it as the money is not there to justify leaving rivals behind and to increase travel. Ask yourself, will school X's fans care about seeing a home game against school Y from two timezones or 3000 miles away.

Will not be in a city or state with a current member. This would seem to be obvious.

Will not be a Service Academy. One is comfortable in Independence and the other is a Western school. If that theory had legs and there was mutual interest we wouldnt be having this discussion. They would have been added the day after UConn announced.



When you take that and maybe a couple of other obvious factors into account you can quickly come up with a short list.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I disagree with your Western component until we see what the MWC TV deal is. If it is awful, then the monetary reasons may be there. But I otherwise agree with your assessment of the characteristics of the school. That pretty much leaves us with (in alphabetical order):

- Air Force
- Buffalo
- Colorado State [technically a small outlier due to its non-metro location]
- FIU
- Georgia State
- New Mexico
- Rice
- UAB
- UMass [technically a small outlier due to its non-metro location]
- UTSA

Somewhat lesser fits institutionally:

- Charlotte
- FAU
- North Texas
- Old Dominion
- UTEP

Those are really the schools that fit the AAC profile as urban Carnegie I public research universities with the exception of Rice and Air Force who match the other institutional profiles. Unless we go some wildcard route like the FB-only, the next member is almost certainly in that list.
FIU when there are already two FL schools?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I don’t think FIU is a player because of that as well as the weakness of their athletic department, but they are otherwise a fit institutionally.
10-22-2019 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,388
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 948
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #85
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
One thing to consider when considering UAB ... (and I respect that university):

Does the AAC want an athletic program whose football program would play third fiddle (and maybe fourth) in its state to Bama, Auburn and (maybe) Troy?

Does the AAC want an athletic program whose basketball program would play third fiddle in its state to Bama and Auburn?

UAB does have excellent men's/women's soccer, is spending money on its sports facilities and coaches, has a quality hoops tradition/fan base, has a strong medical school and is located in the heart of a good-sized city. It would be a very solid choice. But I just have to wonder if there are not better choices.

Now it will be easy to argue (to counter this argument) that existing AAC programs take a back seat to various programs in their respective states. True, but it would be nice to "expand the American brand" into an area that is not so saturated with other league affiliations. And this is one reason Buffalo is intriguing. Likewise for Colorado State and VCU. Obviously, those three have flaws. All candidates do, just like every AAC school has negatives. We're not talking about massive state universities with huge fan bases, robust athletic department budgets, etc. We have to be realistic.
10-22-2019 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,005
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #86
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 09:42 PM)panama Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 08:37 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 06:51 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I highly doubt UAB gets the 12th spot.

Yes, UAB will be playing in a new stadium, but I'm almost certain that it is the city's stadium. I honestly don't know of UAB building any new facilities. Plus, UAB isn't among the top programs in C-USA in athletic budget or coaches salaries, and far from being one of the best among G5 candidates.

WTF are you talking about dude?

According to the most recent numbers, UAB ranks 7th in C-USA in athletic budget...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

UAB ranks 2nd in C-USA in head football coaches salary... (which is higher than I thought it would be, so congrats.)

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

And, UAB ranks 9th in C-USA in assistant football coaches salary pool.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salarie.../assistant

And, like I stated Birmingham is building a new stadium. Yes, UAB will be playing there, but it is not their stadium. I believe the city will be hosting the World Games there before UAB gets use of the facility.

https://alabamanewscenter.com/2018/12/13...dium-bjcc/
They will be the primary tenant.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Being a tenant is problematic. Having an on campus facility is always more desirable.

For example, North Texas plays basketball at the Super Pit, which is owned by the university and not the athletic department. Getting access to the facility can be an issue. That is why the North Texas Athletic Department will be building a new basketball arena just for their teams. It also allows the athletic department to make structural and cosmetic changes, that being a tenant does not allow for.
10-22-2019 09:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #87
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 09:55 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:42 PM)panama Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 08:37 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 06:51 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I highly doubt UAB gets the 12th spot.

Yes, UAB will be playing in a new stadium, but I'm almost certain that it is the city's stadium. I honestly don't know of UAB building any new facilities. Plus, UAB isn't among the top programs in C-USA in athletic budget or coaches salaries, and far from being one of the best among G5 candidates.

WTF are you talking about dude?

According to the most recent numbers, UAB ranks 7th in C-USA in athletic budget...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

UAB ranks 2nd in C-USA in head football coaches salary... (which is higher than I thought it would be, so congrats.)

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

And, UAB ranks 9th in C-USA in assistant football coaches salary pool.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salarie.../assistant

And, like I stated Birmingham is building a new stadium. Yes, UAB will be playing there, but it is not their stadium. I believe the city will be hosting the World Games there before UAB gets use of the facility.

https://alabamanewscenter.com/2018/12/13...dium-bjcc/
They will be the primary tenant.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Being a tenant is problematic. Having an on campus facility is always more desirable.

For example, North Texas plays basketball at the Super Pit, which is owned by the university and not the athletic department. Getting access to the facility can be an issue. That is why the North Texas Athletic Department will be building a new basketball arena just for their teams. It also allows the athletic department to make structural and cosmetic changes, that being a tenant does not allow for.

UNT isn't getting into any conference that SMU is in. Redundant markets plus opposition from SMU themselves. And by the point in any future realignment that the AAC has been raided down to SMU, it'd be a lateral move from the current CUSA.
10-22-2019 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,005
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #88
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 10:01 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:55 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:42 PM)panama Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 09:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 08:37 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  WTF are you talking about dude?

According to the most recent numbers, UAB ranks 7th in C-USA in athletic budget...

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

UAB ranks 2nd in C-USA in head football coaches salary... (which is higher than I thought it would be, so congrats.)

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

And, UAB ranks 9th in C-USA in assistant football coaches salary pool.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salarie.../assistant

And, like I stated Birmingham is building a new stadium. Yes, UAB will be playing there, but it is not their stadium. I believe the city will be hosting the World Games there before UAB gets use of the facility.

https://alabamanewscenter.com/2018/12/13...dium-bjcc/
They will be the primary tenant.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Being a tenant is problematic. Having an on campus facility is always more desirable.

For example, North Texas plays basketball at the Super Pit, which is owned by the university and not the athletic department. Getting access to the facility can be an issue. That is why the North Texas Athletic Department will be building a new basketball arena just for their teams. It also allows the athletic department to make structural and cosmetic changes, that being a tenant does not allow for.

UNT isn't getting into any conference that SMU is in. Redundant markets plus opposition from SMU themselves. And by the point in any future realignment that the AAC has been raided down to SMU, it'd be a lateral move from the current CUSA.

You could be right, but our goal at North Texas is to build the best program we can regardless of the conference we play in. As long as the access bowl is open to the highest rated team from among the G5, we can reach our goals. This year we have taken a step back on the field, but we are continuing to build the foundation for a strong G5 program.
10-22-2019 10:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HiddenDragon Offline
Banned

Posts: 15,979
Joined: May 2004
I Root For:
Location:

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #89
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
Side Show, I'm not here to pimp UAB admission to the AAC. But I am here to correct to misinformation that is being said about UAB and Birmingham. Yes, it is more desirable to have an on campus stadium but the new Birmingham stadium is being built primarily for UAB Football that of course will be used for other events such as the Birmingham Bowl and the upcoming World Games. There is no reason for the AAC to view as a detriment for consideration.

As far as the other stuff you rattled off it's whatever. I'm not going to rattle off negatives about other programs to justify why they wouldn't be considered for the AAC. That's too easy and bush-league.

UAB attributes will stand on it's own just like UNT, Northern Illinois, BYU or any other school that may be considered if the AAC decides to extend an invite.

04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 08:52 AM by HiddenDragon.)
10-23-2019 08:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #90
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 07:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 02:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Oh I think they definitely would. There just isnt much to pick from out east. ODU? UAB? Marshall? Colorado St starts looking pretty good once you see the alternatives. CSU is not a spectatcular add--but it is a very similar institutional fit, with a brand/history that fits, with a similar budget, similar facilities, and a performance track record that is at least acceptable in both revenue sports. I'd rather Air Force as a football only paired with VCU---but CSU would be miles ahead of every option east of the Rockies other than Army.

Colorado St. is one of the worst football programs historically in FBS. They had a good period under Lubick. They have had 1 season more than 2 games above .500 since he left (and had at least 6 losses every year but 1). They had 7 under Lubick. Prior to him they had only 4 going back to 1950. They just aren't worth going so far west. They haven't been particularly good in basketball either.

I would guess Marshall and USM would both be better TV draws.

That's actually not true. I mean---I'll stipulate CSU isnt a great football factory---but they arent among the worst in FBS like UAB or ODU. CSU was quite good just a few years a go under MaElwain. Won 10 games I believe in 2014. They basically are generally average with a really good year every so often and a really bad year every so often.

On the other hand---ODU has been a horrendous bust as an FBS program. UAB was a horrid mess for years before Clark and will return to cellar as soon as he leaves. UMass--horrible. Marshall is the only one with football program---but they weren't very good when they shared CUSA with many of the AAC teams and dont have much of a basketbal program (not to mention academics and budget issues). Like I said---they start looking pretty good when you look at the eastern options.

What you are really seeing is why my preference is just to deal with some relatively minor scheduling issues rather than settle for the "least bad" addition. At the very least---split the #12 slot into "non-football" and "football only" invites so you can minimize the negatives of adding another team.

That was their only year since 2002 without at least 6 losses. Its why he got the Florida job. He took a bad program and got 10 wins.

Pulling up the 2015 record book Colorado St. is bottom 20 all time at .475.

Who was below them? The historical dregs of FBS. And some of these schools who were new to FBS have probably passed them (since it doesn't take much to improve on those low winning %s).

MAC-Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, Kent St.
Sun Belt-Georgia St., La-Monroe
CUSA-FAU, FIU, UAB, Rice, UTEP
MWC-UNLV, New Mexico
Indy-New Mexico St.
AAC-Tulane, Temple
P5-Indiana, Iowa St., Kansas St., Northwestern

C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average. I looked it up a while back. I think I went back 20 years and they were a few games under .500 for that period. I call that basically average. Look, Im not saying they are great---but they will be around .500 with a really good year here and there and a really bad year here and there. Most of the eastern options are a drag on basketball, football, or both. Thats why I like the idea of splitting the bid rather than looking for a single full member---or just standing pat at 11.

Well, ODU's win % in FBS is 0.456 not far below CSU and we just moved up to FBS. We've had a good year, currently having an awful year and the rest were 4-6 wins. It certainly hasn't been great and we're not getting an invite based on our FBS football record. I'm not saying CSU wouldn't be a better add either, they have a beautiful new stadium and have good support despite lackluster performance, a brand new market. Plenty to like. I'm just saying your characterizations are flawed. And we don't plan on sucking forever, FWIW.
10-23-2019 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blazer-J Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 328
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 7
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #91
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 06:51 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I highly doubt UAB gets the 12th spot.

Yes, UAB will be playing in a new stadium, but I'm almost certain that it is the city's stadium. [b]I honestly don't know of UAB building any new facilities.[/b] Plus, UAB isn't among the top programs in C-USA in athletic budget or coaches salaries, and far from being one of the best among G5 candidates.

We opened our Football operations center and practice complex in 2017. It cost around $22.5m. There has also been a new soccer stadium, a new track & field complex and new practice facilities are in the works for the basketball teams.
10-23-2019 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #92
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-23-2019 08:48 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 02:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  Colorado St. is one of the worst football programs historically in FBS. They had a good period under Lubick. They have had 1 season more than 2 games above .500 since he left (and had at least 6 losses every year but 1). They had 7 under Lubick. Prior to him they had only 4 going back to 1950. They just aren't worth going so far west. They haven't been particularly good in basketball either.

I would guess Marshall and USM would both be better TV draws.

That's actually not true. I mean---I'll stipulate CSU isnt a great football factory---but they arent among the worst in FBS like UAB or ODU. CSU was quite good just a few years a go under MaElwain. Won 10 games I believe in 2014. They basically are generally average with a really good year every so often and a really bad year every so often.

On the other hand---ODU has been a horrendous bust as an FBS program. UAB was a horrid mess for years before Clark and will return to cellar as soon as he leaves. UMass--horrible. Marshall is the only one with football program---but they weren't very good when they shared CUSA with many of the AAC teams and dont have much of a basketbal program (not to mention academics and budget issues). Like I said---they start looking pretty good when you look at the eastern options.

What you are really seeing is why my preference is just to deal with some relatively minor scheduling issues rather than settle for the "least bad" addition. At the very least---split the #12 slot into "non-football" and "football only" invites so you can minimize the negatives of adding another team.

That was their only year since 2002 without at least 6 losses. Its why he got the Florida job. He took a bad program and got 10 wins.

Pulling up the 2015 record book Colorado St. is bottom 20 all time at .475.

Who was below them? The historical dregs of FBS. And some of these schools who were new to FBS have probably passed them (since it doesn't take much to improve on those low winning %s).

MAC-Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, Kent St.
Sun Belt-Georgia St., La-Monroe
CUSA-FAU, FIU, UAB, Rice, UTEP
MWC-UNLV, New Mexico
Indy-New Mexico St.
AAC-Tulane, Temple
P5-Indiana, Iowa St., Kansas St., Northwestern

C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average. I looked it up a while back. I think I went back 20 years and they were a few games under .500 for that period. I call that basically average. Look, Im not saying they are great---but they will be around .500 with a really good year here and there and a really bad year here and there. Most of the eastern options are a drag on basketball, football, or both. Thats why I like the idea of splitting the bid rather than looking for a single full member---or just standing pat at 11.

Well, ODU's win % in FBS is 0.456 not far below CSU and we just moved up to FBS. We've had a good year, currently having an awful year and the rest were 4-6 wins. It certainly hasn't been great and we're not getting an invite based on our FBS football record. I'm not saying CSU wouldn't be a better add either, they have a beautiful new stadium and have good support despite lackluster performance, a brand new market. Plenty to like. I'm just saying your characterizations are flawed. And we don't plan on sucking forever, FWIW.

Correct. That’s kinda my point. The eastern full member choices being batted about are all so bad that CSU actually looks better. The process has devolved to the point that its not about adding the “best” option—it’s about adding the least “bad” option. All I’m really saying is there isn’t anyone worth adding as a full member—-thus your better off splitting the invite into “football only” and “non-football” slots or standing pat. Right now, I actually think standing pat is probably the wisest move.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 09:44 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-23-2019 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvanJ Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,105
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Hofstra and FSU
Location:
Post: #93
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 09:00 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  That leaves:

UAB
Georgia Southern
Old Dominion

Realignment has historically shown a consistent ladder of movement, especially new(er) programs that are building their way up the chain. I, personally, would be surprised to see a program from the Sun Belt immediately get called up to the American. History has shown that there would need to be period of time in C-USA first that would precipitate an AAC invitation.

For example, Louisville went from being an Independent, to C-USA, to the Big East (and briefly the AAC) to the ACC. With the exception to Temple and Navy, every football member has had a stop in C-USA. I would guess if there ever was a 12th member in the AAC, it would probably come from C-USA.
C-USA may be more prestigious than the Sun Belt due to the Men's Basketball success of its former members, but this is the second consecutive year that C-USA is the worst FBS conference in the Sagarin.
10-23-2019 09:41 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #94
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-23-2019 09:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 08:48 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's actually not true. I mean---I'll stipulate CSU isnt a great football factory---but they arent among the worst in FBS like UAB or ODU. CSU was quite good just a few years a go under MaElwain. Won 10 games I believe in 2014. They basically are generally average with a really good year every so often and a really bad year every so often.

On the other hand---ODU has been a horrendous bust as an FBS program. UAB was a horrid mess for years before Clark and will return to cellar as soon as he leaves. UMass--horrible. Marshall is the only one with football program---but they weren't very good when they shared CUSA with many of the AAC teams and dont have much of a basketbal program (not to mention academics and budget issues). Like I said---they start looking pretty good when you look at the eastern options.

What you are really seeing is why my preference is just to deal with some relatively minor scheduling issues rather than settle for the "least bad" addition. At the very least---split the #12 slot into "non-football" and "football only" invites so you can minimize the negatives of adding another team.

That was their only year since 2002 without at least 6 losses. Its why he got the Florida job. He took a bad program and got 10 wins.

Pulling up the 2015 record book Colorado St. is bottom 20 all time at .475.

Who was below them? The historical dregs of FBS. And some of these schools who were new to FBS have probably passed them (since it doesn't take much to improve on those low winning %s).

MAC-Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, Kent St.
Sun Belt-Georgia St., La-Monroe
CUSA-FAU, FIU, UAB, Rice, UTEP
MWC-UNLV, New Mexico
Indy-New Mexico St.
AAC-Tulane, Temple
P5-Indiana, Iowa St., Kansas St., Northwestern

C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average. I looked it up a while back. I think I went back 20 years and they were a few games under .500 for that period. I call that basically average. Look, Im not saying they are great---but they will be around .500 with a really good year here and there and a really bad year here and there. Most of the eastern options are a drag on basketball, football, or both. Thats why I like the idea of splitting the bid rather than looking for a single full member---or just standing pat at 11.

Well, ODU's win % in FBS is 0.456 not far below CSU and we just moved up to FBS. We've had a good year, currently having an awful year and the rest were 4-6 wins. It certainly hasn't been great and we're not getting an invite based on our FBS football record. I'm not saying CSU wouldn't be a better add either, they have a beautiful new stadium and have good support despite lackluster performance, a brand new market. Plenty to like. I'm just saying your characterizations are flawed. And we don't plan on sucking forever, FWIW.

Correct. That’s kinda my point. The eastern full member choices being batted about are all so bad that CSU actually looks better. The process has devolved to the point that its not about adding the “best” option—it’s about adding the least “bad” option. All I’m really saying is there isn’t anyone worth adding as a full member—-thus your better off splitting the invite into “football only” and “non-football” slots or standing pat. Right now, I actually think standing pat is probably the wisest move.

I'm fine with that but....

"I'll stipulate CSU isnt a great football factory---but they arent among the worst in FBS like UAB or ODU"

"C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average."

.....doesn't hold water. Either we're both terrible or both average. We were actually 0.492 before the start of this season with 1 ten win season and our worse season in school history (10 years) being 4 wins. Again, this isn't impressive per se and this year we're definitely one of the worst teams in the FBS but I imagine we'll have a coaching change and we'll see what happens.
10-23-2019 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #95
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-22-2019 08:03 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I want to throw a wild-card out there: New Mexico

We haven't discussed them really in these threads. It's not a huge market - 47th. But they have a strong basketball history, and they're an institutional fit. So far as football, it has struggled for the most part, but joining the AAC would give New Mexico a leg-up on their regional competition and much better access to Texas recruiting. It's a state flagship school, which has merit unto itself, especially if the AAC is going to want to call on political muscle down the road.

New Mexico didn't make the Big 12 final 11. Apparently there are some financial issues in their athletic department. And maybe being in a relatively poor state.

Although they make sense other ways, the Big 12 clearly saw some things they didn't like and the AAC is likely to feel the same way. Colorado St., Air Force and Rice did make the final 11.
10-23-2019 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ArmoredUpKnight Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,835
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 681
I Root For: UCF Knights
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Post: #96
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
I'd rather kick Tulsa out and play a true round robin than add UAB or any of the C-USA programs.

1. BYU
2. Army
3. Air Force
4. Kick out Tulsa
5. Some random MW team
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 10:22 AM by ArmoredUpKnight.)
10-23-2019 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #97
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-23-2019 10:02 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 09:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 08:48 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  That was their only year since 2002 without at least 6 losses. Its why he got the Florida job. He took a bad program and got 10 wins.

Pulling up the 2015 record book Colorado St. is bottom 20 all time at .475.

Who was below them? The historical dregs of FBS. And some of these schools who were new to FBS have probably passed them (since it doesn't take much to improve on those low winning %s).

MAC-Buffalo, Eastern Michigan, Kent St.
Sun Belt-Georgia St., La-Monroe
CUSA-FAU, FIU, UAB, Rice, UTEP
MWC-UNLV, New Mexico
Indy-New Mexico St.
AAC-Tulane, Temple
P5-Indiana, Iowa St., Kansas St., Northwestern

C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average. I looked it up a while back. I think I went back 20 years and they were a few games under .500 for that period. I call that basically average. Look, Im not saying they are great---but they will be around .500 with a really good year here and there and a really bad year here and there. Most of the eastern options are a drag on basketball, football, or both. Thats why I like the idea of splitting the bid rather than looking for a single full member---or just standing pat at 11.

Well, ODU's win % in FBS is 0.456 not far below CSU and we just moved up to FBS. We've had a good year, currently having an awful year and the rest were 4-6 wins. It certainly hasn't been great and we're not getting an invite based on our FBS football record. I'm not saying CSU wouldn't be a better add either, they have a beautiful new stadium and have good support despite lackluster performance, a brand new market. Plenty to like. I'm just saying your characterizations are flawed. And we don't plan on sucking forever, FWIW.

Correct. That’s kinda my point. The eastern full member choices being batted about are all so bad that CSU actually looks better. The process has devolved to the point that its not about adding the “best” option—it’s about adding the least “bad” option. All I’m really saying is there isn’t anyone worth adding as a full member—-thus your better off splitting the invite into “football only” and “non-football” slots or standing pat. Right now, I actually think standing pat is probably the wisest move.

I'm fine with that but....

"I'll stipulate CSU isnt a great football factory---but they arent among the worst in FBS like UAB or ODU"

"C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average."

.....doesn't hold water. Either we're both terrible or both average. We were actually 0.492 before the start of this season with 1 ten win season and our worse season in school history (10 years) being 4 wins. Again, this isn't impressive per se and this year we're definitely one of the worst teams in the FBS but I imagine we'll have a coaching change and we'll see what happens.

Well at .475, over 100 schools were above them. Remember, schools beat up on FCS schools and schools that have dropped down or dropped football (Idaho for instance). Listing is alphabetical after top 50 so I can't easily count how many are over .500 (guess they don't want to embarrass anyone), but #50 in UNC at .561. Its a long way down to .475.
10-23-2019 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,693
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 314
I Root For: UCF/Tulsa
Location:
Post: #98
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-23-2019 10:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 08:03 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I want to throw a wild-card out there: New Mexico

We haven't discussed them really in these threads. It's not a huge market - 47th. But they have a strong basketball history, and they're an institutional fit. So far as football, it has struggled for the most part, but joining the AAC would give New Mexico a leg-up on their regional competition and much better access to Texas recruiting. It's a state flagship school, which has merit unto itself, especially if the AAC is going to want to call on political muscle down the road.

New Mexico didn't make the Big 12 final 11. Apparently there are some financial issues in their athletic department. And maybe being in a relatively poor state.

Although they make sense other ways, the Big 12 clearly saw some things they didn't like and the AAC is likely to feel the same way. Colorado St., Air Force and Rice did make the final 11.

Good to know. Too bad, it was fun when UCF won at The Pit several years ago. Great basketball atmosphere.
10-23-2019 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #99
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
(10-23-2019 10:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 10:02 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 09:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-23-2019 08:48 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average. I looked it up a while back. I think I went back 20 years and they were a few games under .500 for that period. I call that basically average. Look, Im not saying they are great---but they will be around .500 with a really good year here and there and a really bad year here and there. Most of the eastern options are a drag on basketball, football, or both. Thats why I like the idea of splitting the bid rather than looking for a single full member---or just standing pat at 11.

Well, ODU's win % in FBS is 0.456 not far below CSU and we just moved up to FBS. We've had a good year, currently having an awful year and the rest were 4-6 wins. It certainly hasn't been great and we're not getting an invite based on our FBS football record. I'm not saying CSU wouldn't be a better add either, they have a beautiful new stadium and have good support despite lackluster performance, a brand new market. Plenty to like. I'm just saying your characterizations are flawed. And we don't plan on sucking forever, FWIW.

Correct. That’s kinda my point. The eastern full member choices being batted about are all so bad that CSU actually looks better. The process has devolved to the point that its not about adding the “best” option—it’s about adding the least “bad” option. All I’m really saying is there isn’t anyone worth adding as a full member—-thus your better off splitting the invite into “football only” and “non-football” slots or standing pat. Right now, I actually think standing pat is probably the wisest move.

I'm fine with that but....

"I'll stipulate CSU isnt a great football factory---but they arent among the worst in FBS like UAB or ODU"

"C'mon. 475 is 5.7 wins a year. Thats pretty average."

.....doesn't hold water. Either we're both terrible or both average. We were actually 0.492 before the start of this season with 1 ten win season and our worse season in school history (10 years) being 4 wins. Again, this isn't impressive per se and this year we're definitely one of the worst teams in the FBS but I imagine we'll have a coaching change and we'll see what happens.

Well at .475, over 100 schools were above them. Remember, schools beat up on FCS schools and schools that have dropped down or dropped football (Idaho for instance). Listing is alphabetical after top 50 so I can't easily count how many are over .500 (guess they don't want to embarrass anyone), but #50 in UNC at .561. Its a long way down to .475.

So you're saying CSU and ODU have been terrible in football? Fair enough. As long as we're consistent.
10-23-2019 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Blazer4Life14 Offline
One of “Kent’s People”
*

Posts: 4,841
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 220
I Root For: UAB, Pro Sports
Location: Springfield
Post: #100
RE: UAB will be AAC 12th FB member
Between the snobbiness of AAC fans, the ignorance of people who know nothing about UAB, but claim to, and the homer-istic opinions of fans of teams that’re “being looked at” by the AAC, this thread has it all. It’s better than cable.
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2019 10:23 AM by Blazer4Life14.)
10-23-2019 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.