(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.
Honestly, most of the CUSA schools have shared a conference with UAB. I was happy and rooted for them when they were able to bring their program back. That said, they are in a good place that fits them now. They have a ceiling on their program thats fairly low. Budget, Board stewardship, and support (only 19,511 showed up to last Saturdays game---for the reigning CUSA champ who is now 6-1) seem to conspire to limit what UAB can be. I dont know the reason---maybe Bama just sucks all the air out of Birmingham---I just can see UAB isnt the right fit.
Frankly, there is a reason the AAC hasnt replaced UConn. There isnt an obvious candidate. The AAC lost a basketball elite when UConn left (though they underperformed for much of their short AAC stay). Still, it will tough to replace UConn basketball. On the other hand, losing UConn football actually gives the league a chance to improve the football product.
Unfortunately, there is no single "full member" candidate that can offer high quality football and high quality basketball. As best I can see, the AAC's got 3 options.
1) Settle on a full member that falls short on one of these 2 key attributes---quality football performance and quality basketball performance.
2) Split the invite into "football only" and "non-football" invites. This allows the conference to add a high quality basketball program (say VCU) and a traditionally high performing football program (S Miss, Appy St, La Tech, Marshall, etc). Basically, this option allows the AAC to create the perfect candidate for #12 out of thin air.
3) If the 2 year waiver expires, no rule change is passed, and the candidate landscape still looks as bleak as it does today, then just suck it up and play 2-games against the same team for a while in an uneven division configuration. The scheduling woes are just temporary--being stuck with a new unwanted member is PERMANENT. If the conference is patient, eventually, either a suitable new member candidate will emerge or the conference will lose a member to get down to a more "scheduling friendly" 10 members. Either way, time will cure the issue.
Right now, I'd opt for #2 or #3.