(05-05-2021 09:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I hope he is wrong. IMO, the AAC should not take Boise or SDSU, and especially not if we have to take any sports other than football.

And I'm even against taking their football. The AAC has proven capable of dominating the G5 NY6 spot without these MW schools. There's a reason the rest of the MW tried to end Boise's sweetheart TV deal - because Boise hasn't been doing what they were expected to do to earn that extra money, namely capture the NY6 spot. The last time Boise did that, Saban had four national titles not seven, and the idea of Clemson going to the playoffs even once seemed far-fetched. IMO we dodged a bullet when they bailed out in late 2012 as the Big East fell fully apart.

Boise and SDSU want a lifeline. But why should the AAC provide one? As a USF fan, I'm uninterested in allowing Boise or SDSU access to our superior platform.

Let them drown.

Boise still gets a lot of left over respect from their previous success.

(05-05-2021 08:46 PM)Yung Knightt Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 07:49 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few quick thoughts:

1) While the concept of Boise eventually joining the AAC is based on sound data, the original source here is about as flakey as it gets. I have no source or any indication to think any move is about to be announced or confirmed.

2) The chances of the WCC accepting Boise State are zero percent. The league views institutional fit as an absolute mission critical component of their identity. They're not going to take a public school.

3) BYU makes more money from their ESPN TV deal *and* gets more games where they actually recruit athletes than they would from joining the AAC.

Do you have BYU's ESPN TV deal finances around?

BYU's ESPN $ + $300k CFP + indy bowl $ is <= AAC football only ESPN $ + $2 M CFP + conference bowl $
And that's about 10% of BYU AD budget either way

(05-05-2021 09:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I hope he is wrong. IMO, the AAC should not take Boise or SDSU, and especially not if we have to take any sports other than football.

And I'm even against taking their football. The AAC has proven capable of dominating the G5 NY6 spot without these MW schools. There's a reason the rest of the MW tried to end Boise's sweetheart TV deal - because Boise hasn't been doing what they were expected to do to earn that extra money, namely capture the NY6 spot. The last time Boise did that, Saban had four national titles not seven, and the idea of Clemson going to the playoffs even once seemed far-fetched. IMO we dodged a bullet when they bailed out in late 2012 as the Big East fell fully apart.

Boise and SDSU want a lifeline. But why should the AAC provide one? As a USF fan, I'm uninterested in allowing Boise or SDSU access to our superior platform.

Let them drown.

Tell us how you really feel

As a Boise fan, here's my take on your comments:

I agree that the AAC should not take Boise now. It doesn't make the AAC any more likely of the non-power autobid. If the AAC is ever required to have a 12th school for a CCG, there are at least a half dozen other schools I would consider before Boise.

Boise balking on the AAC back in 2012 was a near-term mistake for the Broncos but a benefit long-term for both Boise and the AAC. It's a bad fit and one doomed from the start. It is only a band-aid and will eventually fall apart. Boise leaving the Mt West would have been okay for a little while but once their relationship with the AAC dissolved, then we're stuck with our Olympic sports in a conference we don't really want to be.

Looking at Boise's Fiesta Bowl in 2014, we were ranked #20 with 2 losses that season. It's not like we dominated our way to earning the bid. We are riding the coattails of Peterson and I'm not going to complain about that.

For the future, Boise needs to position itself to being in the 2nd best Western-based conference, whatever that is. The PAC will always be #1 and Boise has no chance of associating with those schools. The Mt West should take any opportunity to get better and I wish it would. One option I would push is expanding with non-football members BYU, Gonzaga, and St. Mary's. Let the WCC backfill with Grand Canyon and Seattle. If the Mt West became a regular 3-5 bid basketball conference, it would do the conference wonders.

(05-05-2021 09:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I hope he is wrong. IMO, the AAC should not take Boise or SDSU, and especially not if we have to take any sports other than football.

And I'm even against taking their football. The AAC has proven capable of dominating the G5 NY6 spot without these MW schools. There's a reason the rest of the MW tried to end Boise's sweetheart TV deal - because Boise hasn't been doing what they were expected to do to earn that extra money, namely capture the NY6 spot. The last time Boise did that, Saban had four national titles not seven, and the idea of Clemson going to the playoffs even once seemed far-fetched. IMO we dodged a bullet when they bailed out in late 2012 as the Big East fell fully apart.

Boise and SDSU want a lifeline. But why should the AAC provide one? As a USF fan, I'm uninterested in allowing Boise or SDSU access to our superior platform.

Let them drown.

As a Fresno fan I wish you would take Boise. They are poison as a conference mate. There is a reason they couldn’t get their sports into the Big West. But SDSU I would like to keep.

(05-06-2021 12:33 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  As a Fresno fan I wish you would take Boise. They are poison as a conference mate. There is a reason they couldn’t get their sports into the Big West. But SDSU I would like to keep.

Yeah, I both feel for the MWC folks who have to constantly endure the program and its administrative antics and for the AAC folks who can’t seem to land something better, or maybe simply quit Boise. And I want to like Boise, but it’s tough to considering the constant posturing. But it comes down to both conferences doing something about this: MWC needs to play real hardball on Boise and the AAC needs to either formally dispel this rumor or simply air out why the Broncos keep coming up in these discussions. Chances are, make it more known in AAC world, and fans and boosters come knocking on their schools’ doors in some sort of outrage over it. Especially if it comes to full membership.

I’m over all of it, but, totally buy it still being a thing, too.

(05-06-2021 05:46 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 12:33 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  As a Fresno fan I wish you would take Boise. They are poison as a conference mate. There is a reason they couldn’t get their sports into the Big West. But SDSU I would like to keep.

Yeah, I both feel for the MWC folks who have to constantly endure the program and its administrative antics and for the AAC folks who can’t seem to land something better, or maybe simply quit Boise. And I want to like Boise, but it’s tough to considering the constant posturing. But it comes down to both conferences doing something about this: MWC needs to play real hardball on Boise and the AAC needs to either formally dispel this rumor or simply air out why the Broncos keep coming up in these discussions. Chances are, make it more known in AAC world, and fans and boosters come knocking on their schools’ doors in some sort of outrage over it. Especially if it comes to full membership.

I’m over all of it, but, totally buy it still being a thing, too.

I personally think moving up would fix that, because Boise is an AAC-quality team sitting in the MWC. Similar to how if Texas joined the SEC, they wouldn't be laying their d*** on the table as often.

(05-05-2021 10:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:46 PM)Yung Knightt Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 07:49 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few quick thoughts:

1) While the concept of Boise eventually joining the AAC is based on sound data, the original source here is about as flakey as it gets. I have no source or any indication to think any move is about to be announced or confirmed.

2) The chances of the WCC accepting Boise State are zero percent. The league views institutional fit as an absolute mission critical component of their identity. They're not going to take a public school.

3) BYU makes more money from their ESPN TV deal *and* gets more games where they actually recruit athletes than they would from joining the AAC.

Do you have BYU's ESPN TV deal finances around?

BYU's ESPN $ + $300k CFP + indy bowl $ is <= AAC football only ESPN $ + $2 M CFP + conference bowl $
And that's about 10% of BYU AD budget either way

Is it fair to compare BYU's entire situation now vs. AAC Football membership? I'd think that you'd have to factor in revenue from their olympics that they would be able to pocket.

(05-06-2021 07:25 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 10:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:46 PM)Yung Knightt Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 07:49 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few quick thoughts:

1) While the concept of Boise eventually joining the AAC is based on sound data, the original source here is about as flakey as it gets. I have no source or any indication to think any move is about to be announced or confirmed.

2) The chances of the WCC accepting Boise State are zero percent. The league views institutional fit as an absolute mission critical component of their identity. They're not going to take a public school.

3) BYU makes more money from their ESPN TV deal *and* gets more games where they actually recruit athletes than they would from joining the AAC.

Do you have BYU's ESPN TV deal finances around?

BYU's ESPN $ + $300k CFP + indy bowl $ is <= AAC football only ESPN $ + $2 M CFP + conference bowl $
And that's about 10% of BYU AD budget either way

Is it fair to compare BYU's entire situation now vs. AAC Football membership? I'd think that you'd have to factor in revenue from their olympics that they would be able to pocket.

Just isolating variables as much as possible, while still trying to make apples to apples comparisons. Matt Brown made the common error of looking at ESPN$ vs ESPN $, when the CFP $ is 30% (full) to 45% (football only) of the AAC ESPN$.
If it's a football-only add, then their olympic revenue is unchanged (WCC money including tourney credits, etc)...so no need to factor in.
If it's all-sports (which I put in believe it when I see it) then you're looking at different changes yes.
I mean, let me know if I misunderstood the question.
But that's already more time and energy than I like to invest in some vague-tweeting and the least common denominator realignment discussion board.

The bigger point is that $10million dollars or so is NOT going to be the sole determinant for BYU. Football ticket sales for six home games are almost certainly more money for them than either of those ESPN/CFP/bowl sums I compared. And then there is more gameday revenue than just the gate. If it's just money, maybe they calculate that an AAC slate will draw poorly compared to the independent schedules they're used to, and it tips the money scales.
But it isn't just money - access to expanded playoffs will get weighed against perceptions vis a vis Utah, and even that will take a backseat in decision making to the bigger BYU mission within the global LDS Church mission.

(05-06-2021 07:52 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 07:25 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 10:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:46 PM)Yung Knightt Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 07:49 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few quick thoughts:

1) While the concept of Boise eventually joining the AAC is based on sound data, the original source here is about as flakey as it gets. I have no source or any indication to think any move is about to be announced or confirmed.

2) The chances of the WCC accepting Boise State are zero percent. The league views institutional fit as an absolute mission critical component of their identity. They're not going to take a public school.

3) BYU makes more money from their ESPN TV deal *and* gets more games where they actually recruit athletes than they would from joining the AAC.

Do you have BYU's ESPN TV deal finances around?

BYU's ESPN $ + $300k CFP + indy bowl $ is <= AAC football only ESPN $ + $2 M CFP + conference bowl $
And that's about 10% of BYU AD budget either way

Is it fair to compare BYU's entire situation now vs. AAC Football membership? I'd think that you'd have to factor in revenue from their olympics that they would be able to pocket.

Just isolating variables as much as possible, while still trying to make apples to apples comparisons. Matt Brown made the common error of looking at ESPN$ vs ESPN $, when the CFP $ is 30% (full) to 45% (football only) of the AAC ESPN$.
If it's a football-only add, then their olympic revenue is unchanged (WCC money including tourney credits, etc)...so no need to factor in.
If it's all-sports (which I put in believe it when I see it) then you're looking at different changes yes.
I mean, let me know if I misunderstood the question.
But that's already more time and energy than I like to invest in some vague-tweeting and the least common denominator realignment discussion board.

The bigger point is that $10million dollars or so is NOT going to be the sole determinant for BYU. Football ticket sales for six home games are almost certainly more money for them than either of those ESPN/CFP/bowl sums I compared. And then there is more gameday revenue than just the gate. If it's just money, maybe they calculate that an AAC slate will draw poorly compared to the independent schedules they're used to, and it tips the money scales.
But it isn't just money - access to expanded playoffs will get weighed against perceptions vis a vis Utah, and even that will take a backseat in decision making to the bigger BYU mission within the global LDS Church mission.

Gotcha. I forgot that their olympic sports aren't part of the ESPN deal.

I could see the AAC pursuing an all sport western division with Boise and friends if the playoff expands with one guaranteed G5 slot in order to do everything they can to ensure that spot is the AAC's every year.

As a Cincy and Memphis fan, and as I have noted previously, I would be fine with having the AAC add Boise, SDSU and one other Mountain West team for a seven-team west division. In fact, I likely favor the move (depending on various factors).

(05-06-2021 08:46 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  As a Cincy and Memphis fan, and as I have noted previously, I would be fine with having the AAC add Boise, SDSU and one other Mountain West team for a seven-team west division. In fact, I likely favor the move (depending on various factors).

I agree. Boise St, BYU, and then AFA/San Diego St would be a great pick up.

I’d even be open to another East and West non-fb school to reduce cross division play in Olympic sports—especially if the West non-fb school is Gonzaga.

(05-06-2021 07:52 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 07:25 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 10:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:46 PM)Yung Knightt Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 07:49 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few quick thoughts:

1) While the concept of Boise eventually joining the AAC is based on sound data, the original source here is about as flakey as it gets. I have no source or any indication to think any move is about to be announced or confirmed.

2) The chances of the WCC accepting Boise State are zero percent. The league views institutional fit as an absolute mission critical component of their identity. They're not going to take a public school.

3) BYU makes more money from their ESPN TV deal *and* gets more games where they actually recruit athletes than they would from joining the AAC.

Do you have BYU's ESPN TV deal finances around?

BYU's ESPN $ + $300k CFP + indy bowl $ is <= AAC football only ESPN $ + $2 M CFP + conference bowl $
And that's about 10% of BYU AD budget either way

Is it fair to compare BYU's entire situation now vs. AAC Football membership? I'd think that you'd have to factor in revenue from their olympics that they would be able to pocket.

Just isolating variables as much as possible, while still trying to make apples to apples comparisons. Matt Brown made the common error of looking at ESPN$ vs ESPN $, when the CFP $ is 30% (full) to 45% (football only) of the AAC ESPN$.
If it's a football-only add, then their olympic revenue is unchanged (WCC money including tourney credits, etc)...so no need to factor in.
If it's all-sports (which I put in believe it when I see it) then you're looking at different changes yes.
I mean, let me know if I misunderstood the question.
But that's already more time and energy than I like to invest in some vague-tweeting and the least common denominator realignment discussion board.

The bigger point is that $10million dollars or so is NOT going to be the sole determinant for BYU. Football ticket sales for six home games are almost certainly more money for them than either of those ESPN/CFP/bowl sums I compared. And then there is more gameday revenue than just the gate. If it's just money, maybe they calculate that an AAC slate will draw poorly compared to the independent schedules they're used to, and it tips the money scales.
But it isn't just money - access to expanded playoffs will get weighed against perceptions vis a vis Utah, and even that will take a backseat in decision making to the bigger BYU mission within the global LDS Church mission.

Agreed and I always emphasize the bolded with respect to BYU: they cannot be *structurally* inferior to Utah, which is what automatically happens if they join a G5 league while Utah is in a P5 league.

As an independent, BYU can claim (and TBH, truthfully) that they have the power and brand to get an ESPN contract on its own that Utah wouldn't realistically be able to get. It's a way for BYU to reset the power dynamic between BYU and Utah, which is simply worth more than even a few million more dollars and/or easier playoff access. Many of us here might think that BYU's stance is BS in that regard, but that's how they think.

I would compare it to Michigan State getting an invite to the Big Ten but Michigan's only choices are being either independent or joining the AAC. Michigan is the school that believes in every fiber of its being that it is dominant in the state, whether we're talking about academics or athletics, so the mere thought of MSU being a P5 school while they aren't would cause them to shun any type of implication of being a G5 school. They'd take a haircut on money and playoff access simply to avoid the stigma of being in the G5 when their "lesser" in-state competition is in the P5.

That's how BYU looks at all of this and why I tell any AAC partisan that they're more likely to convince Notre Dame to join their conference than BYU at this point.

(05-06-2021 09:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I always emphasize the bolded with respect to BYU: they cannot be *structurally* inferior to Utah, which is what automatically happens if they join a G5 league while Utah is in a P5 league.

As an independent, BYU can claim (and TBH, truthfully) that they have the power and brand to get an ESPN contract on its own that Utah wouldn't realistically be able to get. It's a way for BYU to reset the power dynamic between BYU and Utah, which is simply worth more than even a few million more dollars and/or easier playoff access. Many of us here might think that BYU's stance is BS in that regard, but that's how they think.

I would compare it to Michigan State getting an invite to the Big Ten but Michigan's only choices are being either independent or joining the AAC. Michigan is the school that believes in every fiber of its being that it is dominant in the state, whether we're talking about academics or athletics, so the mere thought of MSU being a P5 school while they aren't would cause them to shun any type of implication of being a G5 school. They'd take a haircut on money and playoff access simply to avoid the stigma of being in the G5 when their "lesser" in-state competition is in the P5.

That's how BYU looks at all of this and why I tell any AAC partisan that they're more likely to convince Notre Dame to join their conference than BYU at this point.

I often make this same argument when talk turns to the AAC somehow getting BYU to sign on, and I still believe it to a degree, but it's worth noting that BYU doesn't have the same issue being relegated to a lesser league than Utah in basketball. The WCC is a fine mid-major conference, possibly upper-mid major, and nobody denies that Gonzaga is a power program no matter where they play, but it's not a PAC-level conference and almost certainly never will be. Sure, football makes the world go 'round, but BYU and Utah both have strong basketball programs. If perception was this important, BYU wouldn't like the optics of their men's basketball team playing at Portland on the same day that Utah hosted Arizona.

Which isn't an argument for making BYU independent in all sports, because I think we know that's no longer viable. But nobody thinks of BYU basketball as being less than Utah because of the conference company they keep. If BYU is that concerned about being made to look like Utah's weaker sibling because they're not P5, then it's too late because they already are, football independence or no. But they can still be a more elite program than Utah in the MWC or AAC.

It's what the leaders think that counts, of course, but this seems like the biggest issue BYU suffers from is a lack of confidence in their own attributes or their ability to be equal to or better than Utah on their own merits. And if that's their mindset, I don't think a Pac 12 invitation is changing that.

(05-05-2021 08:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So, would you say it’s a 0% chance that the AAC pulls of a Western expansion?

No, I wouldn't say that. I think I even wrote back in Jan that I figured the single most likely scenario would be for Boise football to end up in the AAC. I think there is a non-trivial chance that happens, and it wouldn't necessarily require a large western exodus to the AAC.

I just do not believe that this particular Twitter poster has the juice.

(05-05-2021 08:46 PM)Yung Knightt Wrote:  Do you have BYU's ESPN TV deal finances around?

Not that I can share in public, but I've had folks VERY close to that department tell me that the ESPN deal + WCC revenue > > current AAC deal (which is NOT as lucrative a deal as the initial headlines insinuated). BYU FB made ~6M a year before their extension, and conservative estimates have the new ESPN deal in the 9M range.

BYU joining the AAC would almost certainly trigger a renegotiation of the AAC deal with ESPN....but the bulk of BYU's TV value comes from the fact they they control the broadcast rights to at least three P5 games a year. That won't be the case in the American.

(05-06-2021 09:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Agreed and I always emphasize the bolded with respect to BYU: they cannot be *structurally* inferior to Utah, which is what automatically happens if they join a G5 league while Utah is in a P5 league.

I mean....they are. Even BYU athletic department staffers would agree that they are right now. They're barely recruiting against each other at this point. One school has playoff access, the other doesn't. One school has CFB decision-making access, the other doesn't. BYU's TV deal is impressive, and the Pac-12 has major administrative challenges...and Utah makes more than double what BYU does from TV.

They're still peer programs in plenty of other sports, but structurally? There's no argument.

If the G5 gets a guaranteed playoff spot, I would go for an 18 team AAC with zero interaction between divisons expect for made for TV football and basketball matchups and conference championships

Gonzaga*
St. Mary's*
SDSU
UNLV or Fresno or BYU if they will take it
Boise
Colorado St.
Air Force
Wichita*/Navy
Tulsa

SMU
Houston
Tulane
Memphis
Cincinnati
UCF
USF
ECU
Temple

(05-05-2021 07:49 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few quick thoughts:

1) While the concept of Boise eventually joining the AAC is based on sound data, the original source here is about as flakey as it gets. I have no source or any indication to think any move is about to be announced or confirmed.

2) The chances of the WCC accepting Boise State are zero percent. The league views institutional fit as an absolute mission critical component of their identity. They're not going to take a public school.

3) BYU makes more money from their ESPN TV deal *and* gets more games where they actually recruit athletes than they would from joining the AAC.

Better to say the WCC is not going to take THAT public "school".

Boise State was in the running for the NY6 Bowl in 2019. Since Chris Peterson is not the coach at Washington anymore? You got to wonder if Boise State will pull the plug on Harson and get Peterson back as coach of the Broncos?

(05-06-2021 09:27 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So, would you say it’s a 0% chance that the AAC pulls of a Western expansion?

No, I wouldn't say that. I think I even wrote back in Jan that I figured the single most likely scenario would be for Boise football to end up in the AAC. I think there is a non-trivial chance that happens, and it wouldn't necessarily require a large western exodus to the AAC.

I just do not believe that this particular Twitter poster has the juice.

(05-05-2021 08:46 PM)Yung Knightt Wrote:  Do you have BYU's ESPN TV deal finances around?

Not that I can share in public, but I've had folks VERY close to that department tell me that the ESPN deal + WCC revenue > > current AAC deal (which is NOT as lucrative a deal as the initial headlines insinuated). BYU FB made ~6M a year before their extension, and conservative estimates have the new ESPN deal in the 9M range.

BYU joining the AAC would almost certainly trigger a renegotiation of the AAC deal with ESPN....but the bulk of BYU's TV value comes from the fact they they control the broadcast rights to at least three P5 games a year. That won't be the case in the American.

Be careful about taking BYU sources for that.

The ESPN deal you keep talking about is football only, they also have a deal through the WCC for olympic sports that's signed to ESPN.

The football side of the deal is an ala carte deal. BYU is paid on a per home game basis depending on who they are playing (p5) and on what channel that game is broadcast. The total deal could exceed the AAC deal but only if the right games are scheduled and put on the highest level channel (ABC). Otherwise in a general year they will make slightly less or more than the current AAC pay out.

The WCC portion of the deal is considerably less than the AAC olympic pay out.

Neither case, as SLH pointed out, really effect BYU's bottom line enough to be much more that a tiny thumb on the scale. Their home revenue in both basketball and football is the larger chunk of their revenue.

BYU draws well against AAC teams, how chasing a conference championship would effect that is unknown but looking at other teams it usually boosts attendance.

BYU's pride is and has been the issue.