(05-15-2021 11:49 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 05:50 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  New Pac-12 Commish isn't shy on what he wants.

This is good news for the AAC.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/new-pac-12-com...09859.html

Is it though?

The alternative would be the guy standing up there saying a 4-team format is perfect and shouldn't change. Anyone on the side of expansion, in almost every single format, is in our best interest.

(05-17-2021 09:20 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(05-15-2021 11:49 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 05:50 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  New Pac-12 Commish isn't shy on what he wants.

This is good news for the AAC.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/new-pac-12-com...09859.html

Is it though?

The alternative would be the guy standing up there saying a 4-team format is perfect and shouldn't change. Anyone on the side of expansion, in almost every single format, is in our best interest.

Ding!

(05-16-2021 10:14 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 09:01 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:14 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  
I'm 100% correct if collusion is involved.

"The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed."

Anti-trust laws

competition and monopoly

Espn article in 2011 on BCS anti-trust.
Anti-trust for collusion

Your references to the overarching law are correct, but that doesn’t mean its application to the P5/G5 split is correct (as TodgeRodge noted). The P5 aren’t preventing the AAC or other G5 leagues to enter into agreements with contract bowls, which is really the basis of the P5/G5 split. Any G5 league could get that type of deal if the contract bowls reciprocated in the free market. The fact that the G5 can’t find those deals in the free market is not the fault of the P5.

Now, if the P5 told the contract bowls that they straight up couldn’t enter into agreements with the G5, then *that’s* an illegal restraint of trade. We just need to be clear that’s not happening, though. If the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach Bowls would rather take 3rd/4th place SEC/B1G teams or other P5 at-larges instead of G5 teams and they made those decisions on their own, then that’s perfectly legal.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

Well remember, the 1984 lawsuit was about *ending equity*, not achieving it. Before the lawsuit, the NCAA controlled TV rights to all FBS games, and basically access to TV and money distributions were pretty equal, whether you were Alabama or San Jose State.

Georgia and Oklahoma sued because they wanted to "un-equalize" things. They wanted the more popular conferences and bigger programs to be able to break free from the NCAA deal and maximize their earnings by negotiating separately with willing TV networks, thus leaving the lesser programs in FBS behind to fend for themselves.

And the federal courts - courts that were much more liberal, oriented towards equity, than they are today - ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma.

To me, it's obvious that the reason the P5 get the most money out of the CFP is because their programs are worth the most in the market. The SEC is simply a lot more popular than the MAC. No court or legislation can change that.

The problem with this statement and your many other statements on this specific topic over the years is that you have consistently expressed this negative opinion as if this always has been and and always will be the situation.

My criticism of your staunchly negative appraisal of the AAC's and G5's prospects is based on an over-generalization: You seem to be convinced that the situation hasn't changed, isn't changing, and will never change.


I think that it's crystal clear that you're wrong about this, and that you have been wrong about it for the past several years.

The improvements that the upper tier of G5 and FBS independent teams have been making since 2016 appear to have sailed right over your head - - not just once or twice, but year after year after year.

It seems to have made no impact on you whatsoever that the number of non-P5 FBS teams in the Final Top 25 has grown from 4 in 2016 to 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 8 in 2020. That's a 100% increase in just four years.

But, oddly, that hasn't caused your opinion to change in the slightest.

Well first, I have mentioned some aspects of the changing situation - such as noting that today's supreme court is more conservative, thus likely less to be concerned about "equity", than the 1984 court that opened things up for the big conferences to break away financially from the lesser ones with regards to TV.

Second, why on earth would the number of non-P5 teams in the final top 25 growing over the past five years be relevant here? What does that have to do with financial equity, conference popularity and possible legal issues being discussed?

This space reserved for you to explain that:

(05-16-2021 12:16 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 09:01 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:14 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  I'm 100% correct if collusion is involved.

"The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed."

Anti-trust laws

competition and monopoly

Espn article in 2011 on BCS anti-trust.
Anti-trust for collusion

Your references to the overarching law are correct, but that doesn’t mean its application to the P5/G5 split is correct (as TodgeRodge noted). The P5 aren’t preventing the AAC or other G5 leagues to enter into agreements with contract bowls, which is really the basis of the P5/G5 split. Any G5 league could get that type of deal if the contract bowls reciprocated in the free market. The fact that the G5 can’t find those deals in the free market is not the fault of the P5.

Now, if the P5 told the contract bowls that they straight up couldn’t enter into agreements with the G5, then *that’s* an illegal restraint of trade. We just need to be clear that’s not happening, though. If the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach Bowls would rather take 3rd/4th place SEC/B1G teams or other P5 at-larges instead of G5 teams and they made those decisions on their own, then that’s perfectly legal.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

Well remember, the 1984 lawsuit was about *ending equity*, not achieving it. Before the lawsuit, the NCAA controlled TV rights to all FBS games, and basically access to TV and money distributions were pretty equal, whether you were Alabama or San Jose State.

Georgia and Oklahoma sued because they wanted to "un-equalize" things. They wanted the more popular conferences and bigger programs to be able to break free from the NCAA deal and maximize their earnings by negotiating separately with willing TV networks, thus leaving the lesser programs in FBS behind to fend for themselves.

And the federal courts - courts that were much more liberal, oriented towards equity, than they are today - ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma.

To me, it's obvious that the reason the P5 get the most money out of the CFP is because their programs are worth the most in the market. The SEC is simply a lot more popular than the MAC. No court or legislation can change that.

That's why monopolies are formed. So Alabama won't ever have to compete with the San Jose States of the world.

When George Steinbrenner of the New York Yankees "un-equalized" Major league baseball by outspending everyone, salary caps were put in place. why? So small markets like Kansas City, and Minnesota could compete. They knew if there wasn't a level playing field for everyone, the league would be destroyed.

Add to that, Espn's short cited approach of always trying to first appease investors every quarter, has almost single handedly destroyed MLB. For years all we got for game of the week was the Yankees and the Red Sox because it made the most money. At least for a while. Now we all have Yankee/Boston fatigue, and Americas pastime is probably third amongst professional sports for viewership. Ironically the Yankees and the Red Sox were'nt really rivals prior to ESPN. The Red Sox were perennial cellar dwellers for most of their history.

Now we have the ESPN made for tv college Football championship game. The Alabama Clemson Invitational. Has fatigue set in with anyone here yet?

Also,nobody is bringing up how the market control is destroying the opportunity to compete for recruits. I'm guessing the second and third Left tackle on Alabama's depth chart is probably better than any Left Tackle in the AAC most years. This doesn't happen in College BB. Memphis is routinely on most lists for high level recruits. Houston almost won the National Championship.

Somebody has to step in and stop the insanity these monopolies have created. They'll never change it on their own.

It's clearly stated that if market practices are such that it harms the American consumer, it's a violation of antitrust. What Market is larger, the city of Houston or the entire state of Alabama?

The system is rigged and monopolies have been created by a cartel stifleing competition for short term gains. There needs to be long term solutions to these problems, and you need to look no further than college basketball for answers.

The house of cards needs to come down.

Well about MLB, while yes, there is a "luxury tax" based on a cap amount, nevertheless, salary differences are substantial. Last year, the Dodgers had a $256 million payroll, the Pirates had a $56 million payroll. In my book, that's a big difference.

Also, by the money metric, MLB is presently doing better than ever. In 2001, overall MLB revenue was $3.8 Billion. In 2019, the last pre-virus year, it was $10.37 Billion. In both overall revenue and revenues per team, that is second only to the NFL among global sports leagues, and by a wide margin. NFL per team revenue (soon to rise again, btw) was $356m, MLB was $326m, for the NBA it was $257m.

Finally, as far as CFB is concerned, to my experience, nothing has changed about recruits in the 50 years I've watched college football. In 1972, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and Ohio State got gobs of blue-chip recruits, and the San Jose States and Akrons got very few. Same as today. Heck, if anything things have improved, because as "Jed Clampett" says, more non-P5 teams are making the top 25 than ever before. A school like my USF has far more visibility now than it would have had in 1980.

So I don't think there's much evidence that things are worse now for the "have nots" than in the past. By almost every metric - money, bowl access, and TV access - the USFs and San Jose States have more access now than ever, and with regard to recruits, things are no worse than they ever have been.

Probably a lot better. Back in the 1970s, before recruiting limits were put in place, teams like Alabama and Texas would have 200 guys on their roster. Many guys would rather be 5th on the Texas depth chart but get to strut around campus and elsewhere telling girls they were on the Texas football team than play for North Texas back then.

(05-16-2021 10:14 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It seems to have made no impact on you whatsoever that the number of non-P5 FBS teams in the Final Top 25 has grown from 4 in 2016 to 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 8 in 2020. That's a 100% increase in just four years.

But, oddly, that hasn't caused your opinion to change in the slightest.

While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

(05-17-2021 10:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 12:16 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 09:01 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Your references to the overarching law are correct, but that doesn’t mean its application to the P5/G5 split is correct (as TodgeRodge noted). The P5 aren’t preventing the AAC or other G5 leagues to enter into agreements with contract bowls, which is really the basis of the P5/G5 split. Any G5 league could get that type of deal if the contract bowls reciprocated in the free market. The fact that the G5 can’t find those deals in the free market is not the fault of the P5.

Now, if the P5 told the contract bowls that they straight up couldn’t enter into agreements with the G5, then *that’s* an illegal restraint of trade. We just need to be clear that’s not happening, though. If the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach Bowls would rather take 3rd/4th place SEC/B1G teams or other P5 at-larges instead of G5 teams and they made those decisions on their own, then that’s perfectly legal.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

Well remember, the 1984 lawsuit was about *ending equity*, not achieving it. Before the lawsuit, the NCAA controlled TV rights to all FBS games, and basically access to TV and money distributions were pretty equal, whether you were Alabama or San Jose State.

Georgia and Oklahoma sued because they wanted to "un-equalize" things. They wanted the more popular conferences and bigger programs to be able to break free from the NCAA deal and maximize their earnings by negotiating separately with willing TV networks, thus leaving the lesser programs in FBS behind to fend for themselves.

And the federal courts - courts that were much more liberal, oriented towards equity, than they are today - ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma.

To me, it's obvious that the reason the P5 get the most money out of the CFP is because their programs are worth the most in the market. The SEC is simply a lot more popular than the MAC. No court or legislation can change that.

That's why monopolies are formed. So Alabama won't ever have to compete with the San Jose States of the world.

When George Steinbrenner of the New York Yankees "un-equalized" Major league baseball by outspending everyone, salary caps were put in place. why? So small markets like Kansas City, and Minnesota could compete. They knew if there wasn't a level playing field for everyone, the league would be destroyed.

Add to that, Espn's short cited approach of always trying to first appease investors every quarter, has almost single handedly destroyed MLB. For years all we got for game of the week was the Yankees and the Red Sox because it made the most money. At least for a while. Now we all have Yankee/Boston fatigue, and Americas pastime is probably third amongst professional sports for viewership. Ironically the Yankees and the Red Sox were'nt really rivals prior to ESPN. The Red Sox were perennial cellar dwellers for most of their history.

Now we have the ESPN made for tv college Football championship game. The Alabama Clemson Invitational. Has fatigue set in with anyone here yet?

Also,nobody is bringing up how the market control is destroying the opportunity to compete for recruits. I'm guessing the second and third Left tackle on Alabama's depth chart is probably better than any Left Tackle in the AAC most years. This doesn't happen in College BB. Memphis is routinely on most lists for high level recruits. Houston almost won the National Championship.

Somebody has to step in and stop the insanity these monopolies have created. They'll never change it on their own.

It's clearly stated that if market practices are such that it harms the American consumer, it's a violation of antitrust. What Market is larger, the city of Houston or the entire state of Alabama?

The system is rigged and monopolies have been created by a cartel stifleing competition for short term gains. There needs to be long term solutions to these problems, and you need to look no further than college basketball for answers.

The house of cards needs to come down.

Well about MLB, while yes, there is a "luxury tax" based on a cap amount, nevertheless, salary differences are substantial. Last year, the Dodgers had a $256 million payroll, the Pirates had a $56 million payroll. In my book, that's a big difference.

Also, by the money metric, MLB is presently doing better than ever. In 2001, overall MLB revenue was $3.8 Billion. In 2019, the last pre-virus year, it was $10.37 Billion. In both overall revenue and revenues per team, that is second only to the NFL among global sports leagues, and by a wide margin. NFL per team revenue (soon to rise again, btw) was $356m, MLB was $326m, for the NBA it was $257m.

Finally, as far as CFB is concerned, to my experience, nothing has changed about recruits in the 50 years I've watched college football. In 1972, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and Ohio State got gobs of blue-chip recruits, and the San Jose States and Akrons got very few. Same as today. Heck, if anything things have improved, because as "Jed Clampett" says, more non-P5 teams are making the top 25 than ever before. A school like my USF has far more visibility now than it would have had in 1980.

So I don't think there's much evidence that things are worse now for the "have nots" than in the past. By almost every metric - money, bowl access, and TV access - the USFs and San Jose States have more access now than ever, and with regard to recruits, things are no worse than they ever have been.

Probably a lot better. Back in the 1970s, before recruiting limits were put in place, teams like Alabama and Texas would have 200 guys on their roster. Many guys would rather be 5th on the Texas depth chart but get to strut around campus and elsewhere telling girls they were on the Texas football team than play for North Texas back then.

Yes college football has always been rigged. Saying it is no more rigged now than it ever was is like saying two wrongs make a right.

We have an opportunity to level the playing field some. Give everyone a chance like they do in basketball. It will still be skewed towards the biggest programs, but at least we'll have an opportunity. Recruiting will skyrocket in the AAC.

The current system is corrupt. Everyone knows it and we need to make our voices heard.

edit: Yes you're correct. The cap hasn't fixed the problem in baseball. There are too many work-arounds. What was a good idea in theory is not working anymore.

(05-17-2021 11:01 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:14 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It seems to have made no impact on you whatsoever that the number of non-P5 FBS teams in the Final Top 25 has grown from 4 in 2016 to 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 8 in 2020. That's a 100% increase in just four years.

But, oddly, that hasn't caused your opinion to change in the slightest.

While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

(05-17-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 11:01 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:14 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It seems to have made no impact on you whatsoever that the number of non-P5 FBS teams in the Final Top 25 has grown from 4 in 2016 to 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 8 in 2020. That's a 100% increase in just four years.

But, oddly, that hasn't caused your opinion to change in the slightest.

While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

That's what basically every current P5 team said prior to inviting a new school to join their conf.

Boise "might" be an added for football only...if a 12th team can show how the current tv partner would benefit from:

12th team would add at least 6 home games to the tv network inventory....plus, during most of Oct/Nov...would give the conf up to 6 conf games a week to show...as the max any week now is just 5 due to having just 11 teams.

Adding a 2nd time window in Mountain Time Zone for potential Double Header AAC Games (i.e. 6 pm and 9 pm Eastern kickoffs)

Inviting a team who has had more success than all AAC Teams as they have enjoyed 3 BCS/NYD6 Victories...even greater than UCF's 2.

More eyeballs...as a conf game between UCF vs Boise would bring more eyeballs than say UCF vs Temple or UCF vs ECU or UCF vs Tulsa or UCF vs almost any other team.

Don't be afraid of potential competition....embrace it.

(05-17-2021 03:26 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 11:01 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:14 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It seems to have made no impact on you whatsoever that the number of non-P5 FBS teams in the Final Top 25 has grown from 4 in 2016 to 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 8 in 2020. That's a 100% increase in just four years.

But, oddly, that hasn't caused your opinion to change in the slightest.

While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

That's what basically every current P5 team said prior to inviting a new school to join their conf.

Boise "might" be an added for football only...if a 12th team can show how the current tv partner would benefit from:

12th team would add at least 6 home games to the tv network inventory....plus, during most of Oct/Nov...would give the conf up to 6 conf games a week to show...as the max any week now is just 5 due to having just 11 teams.

Adding a 2nd time window in Mountain Time Zone for potential Double Header AAC Games (i.e. 6 pm and 9 pm Eastern kickoffs)

Inviting a team who has had more success than all AAC Teams as they have enjoyed 3 BCS/NYD6 Victories...even greater than UCF's 2.

More eyeballs...as a conf game between UCF vs Boise would bring more eyeballs than say UCF vs Temple or UCF vs ECU or UCF vs Tulsa or UCF vs almost any other team.

Don't be afraid of potential competition....embrace it.

The criteria should simply be $$. If ESPN recognizes a stronger AAC by the addition of 1-3 schools by paying the AAC more such that it will yield each existing member more $$ & the addition(s) boost our P-6 initiative, then add. Otherwise no.

(05-17-2021 03:26 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 11:01 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:14 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It seems to have made no impact on you whatsoever that the number of non-P5 FBS teams in the Final Top 25 has grown from 4 in 2016 to 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 8 in 2020. That's a 100% increase in just four years.

But, oddly, that hasn't caused your opinion to change in the slightest.

While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

That's what basically every current P5 team said prior to inviting a new school to join their conf.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the B1G thought about Nebraska, Maryland or Rutgers that way. I don't think the SEC thought about Mizzou and TAMU that way. I don't think the PAC thought about Utah and Colorado that way. I don't think the Big 12 thought about WV and TCU that way and I don't think the ACC thought about Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville that way.

In all those cases, the conference chose the teams as part of some broader expansion ambition (e.g., Maryland, TAMU, Pitt, Utah) or in desperation after a raid (TCU, WV, Louisville). I don't see any of those situations as analogous to Boise and the AAC right now.

(05-17-2021 03:26 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 11:01 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

That's what basically every current P5 team said prior to inviting a new school to join their conf.

Boise "might" be an added for football only...if a 12th team can show how the current tv partner would benefit from:

12th team would add at least 6 home games to the tv network inventory....plus, during most of Oct/Nov...would give the conf up to 6 conf games a week to show...as the max any week now is just 5 due to having just 11 teams.

Adding a 2nd time window in Mountain Time Zone for potential Double Header AAC Games (i.e. 6 pm and 9 pm Eastern kickoffs)

Inviting a team who has had more success than all AAC Teams as they have enjoyed 3 BCS/NYD6 Victories...even greater than UCF's 2.

More eyeballs...as a conf game between UCF vs Boise would bring more eyeballs than say UCF vs Temple or UCF vs ECU or UCF vs Tulsa or UCF vs almost any other team.

Don't be afraid of potential competition....embrace it.

Well said.

(05-13-2021 05:50 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  New Pac-12 Commish isn't shy on what he wants.

This is good news for the AAC.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/new-pac-12-com...09859.html

That’s what happens when you get left out every year-

(05-23-2021 08:58 AM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 05:50 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  New Pac-12 Commish isn't shy on what he wants.

This is good news for the AAC.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/new-pac-12-com...09859.html

That’s what happens when you get left out every year-

Plus being stuck with a fledgling conf tv network (Pac-12 Network).

Even AD's of those Pac-12 schools (and their football coaches) know that the perception of Pac-12 Football (and even Basketball prior to their great March Madness Run) has been hurt and its starting to show up on the recruiting trail even more so.

Pac-12 made a solid hire to bring in a "Vegas" Entertainment guy with sports background to help increase their exposure and help improve their brand.

PS. Look for future Pac-12 Championship Football Games to end up in Vegas in a few years plus even more conf championships.

(05-16-2021 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 09:01 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:14 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 02:36 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this is incorrect anti-trust laws are not being broken at all

people simply do not understand what anti-trust is or how it works nor do they understand the bowl system and how the playoffs came to be

the major conferences owned the bowl games that were getting the big name teams (because each bowl had a tie in to a major conference) and they got together and decided to swap around teams to have a better match up

there is nothing at all "anti trust" about that........anti trust does not mean that suddenly those bowl games owe an opportunity to any D1-A team that feels they deserve to be in those bowls to actually be in those bowls

no one is stopping the other conferences from forming their own bowls and making their own match ups and using that to declare a champion....If there was something preventing that then it would be anti-trust

instead those other conferences were offered some concessions and a small amount of money if they wanted to participate provided certain criteria were met......and those conferences MADE A CHOICE to take that offer

people always want to compare the NFL or other pro leagues where "everyone gets a shot", but that means nothing in terms of anti-trust or why or why not any of those pro leagues do not need an exemption from congress in relation to "anti-trust"

those leagues can choose how to decide their playoff participants and championship rules as they see fit and the owners are free to have a vote on that

the ONLY thing that is "anti trust" about the NFL and other pro leagues is the draft system and the free agency system......but because all of the players in each league have chosen to have a union to bargain with the league those leagues and those leagues have chosen to accept those unions there is no need for a congressional anti-trust waiver to allow the draft and free agent rules

if those leagues decided they no longer wanted to deal with the union and then still have a draft and free agent restrictions then they would need that exemption

but other than that it has nothing to do with playoff formats or anything else.....because there is nothing preventing anyone else from trying to form other leagues to compete and nothing preventing them from trying to draw players to their league and have a union work with them

just like there is nothing stopping the G5 conferences from deciding they do not want to be a part of the BCS they will simply have their own bowls and invite who they wish based on their criteria.....but of course other conferences champions are going to say no because they are tied to their bowls and they like the BCS......but that is their right to do so

I'm 100% correct if collusion is involved.

"The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed."

Anti-trust laws

competition and monopoly

Espn article in 2011 on BCS anti-trust.
Anti-trust for collusion

Your references to the overarching law are correct, but that doesn’t mean its application to the P5/G5 split is correct (as TodgeRodge noted). The P5 aren’t preventing the AAC or other G5 leagues to enter into agreements with contract bowls, which is really the basis of the P5/G5 split. Any G5 league could get that type of deal if the contract bowls reciprocated in the free market. The fact that the G5 can’t find those deals in the free market is not the fault of the P5.

Now, if the P5 told the contract bowls that they straight up couldn’t enter into agreements with the G5, then *that’s* an illegal restraint of trade. We just need to be clear that’s not happening, though. If the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach Bowls would rather take 3rd/4th place SEC/B1G teams or other P5 at-larges instead of G5 teams and they made those decisions on their own, then that’s perfectly legal.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

Well remember, the 1984 lawsuit was about *ending equity*, not achieving it. Before the lawsuit, the NCAA controlled TV rights to all FBS games, and basically access to TV and money distributions were pretty equal, whether you were Alabama or San Jose State.

Georgia and Oklahoma sued because they wanted to "un-equalize" things. They wanted the more popular conferences and bigger programs to be able to break free from the NCAA deal and maximize their earnings by negotiating separately with willing TV networks, thus leaving the lesser programs in FBS behind to fend for themselves.

And the federal courts - courts that were much more liberal, oriented towards equity, than they are today - ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma.

To me, it's obvious that the reason the P5 get the most money out of the CFP is because their programs are worth the most in the market. The SEC is simply a lot more popular than the MAC. No court or legislation can change that.

Well put... My point was more to point out that there is unequal access to CFP for all 130 FBS teams... Example the AAC alone has had 4 teams that have been on par or better with the team that made the playoffs but were left out of the process due to early season rankings or rankings by CFP committee ranging them out of contention while the traditional polls had them in.

(05-23-2021 02:04 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 09:01 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:14 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  I'm 100% correct if collusion is involved.

"The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed."

Anti-trust laws

competition and monopoly

Espn article in 2011 on BCS anti-trust.
Anti-trust for collusion

Your references to the overarching law are correct, but that doesn’t mean its application to the P5/G5 split is correct (as TodgeRodge noted). The P5 aren’t preventing the AAC or other G5 leagues to enter into agreements with contract bowls, which is really the basis of the P5/G5 split. Any G5 league could get that type of deal if the contract bowls reciprocated in the free market. The fact that the G5 can’t find those deals in the free market is not the fault of the P5.

Now, if the P5 told the contract bowls that they straight up couldn’t enter into agreements with the G5, then *that’s* an illegal restraint of trade. We just need to be clear that’s not happening, though. If the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach Bowls would rather take 3rd/4th place SEC/B1G teams or other P5 at-larges instead of G5 teams and they made those decisions on their own, then that’s perfectly legal.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

Well remember, the 1984 lawsuit was about *ending equity*, not achieving it. Before the lawsuit, the NCAA controlled TV rights to all FBS games, and basically access to TV and money distributions were pretty equal, whether you were Alabama or San Jose State.

Georgia and Oklahoma sued because they wanted to "un-equalize" things. They wanted the more popular conferences and bigger programs to be able to break free from the NCAA deal and maximize their earnings by negotiating separately with willing TV networks, thus leaving the lesser programs in FBS behind to fend for themselves.

And the federal courts - courts that were much more liberal, oriented towards equity, than they are today - ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma.

To me, it's obvious that the reason the P5 get the most money out of the CFP is because their programs are worth the most in the market. The SEC is simply a lot more popular than the MAC. No court or legislation can change that.

Well put... My point was more to point out that there is unequal access to CFP for all 130 FBS teams... Example the AAC alone has had 4 teams that have been on par or better with the team that made the playoffs but were left out of the process due to early season rankings or rankings by CFP committee ranging them out of contention while the traditional polls had them in.

When you wrote that

"...there is unequal access to CFP for all 130 FBS teams...",

were you attempting to suggest the inference that all 130 FBS teams must therefore have equal access to the CFP?

If so, that type of inference would be a logical fallacy of the "non sequitur" ("doesn't follow") type, because just because all teams have unequal access (i.e., differing probabilities of gaining access) doesn't mean that they have all equal access.

In fact, all it does mean is that all teams differ with respect to how much of an opportunity they have to play in the CFP - - and since that was clear from the very beginning, it hasn't told us anything new or advanced the conversation at all.

.

Moreover, the statement:

"...there is unequal access to CFP for all 130 FBS teams...",

could be viewed as being quite misleading, since it seems to imply that all 130 teams have equally unequal access, which is obviously not the case since several teams have played in 3 or more CFPs while the vast majority have never even been ranked in the CFP top 25.

.

Furthermore, any suggestion that the non-P5 teams have the same opportunity to play in the CFP that the P5 teams have is clearly belied by the facts that, at present:

a) only one non-P5 team per year can earn the opportunity to play in the NY6 bowls, and

b) no team can advance to the CFP without playing in a NY6 bowl; thus:

c) no more than one non-P5 team per year can advance to the playoff series.

This is incontrovertible evidence that the CFP inclusion criteria - due to their linkage with the NY6 bowl selection criteria - guarantee that no fewer than three P5 teams per year will play in the CFP.

This incontrovertible, prima facie evidence is sufficient in itself to prove, beyond any doubt, that the non-P5 FBS teams have unequal access to the college football playoffs.

Whether the undeniable inequalities contained in the CFP inclusion criteria are deemed to be sufficiently harmful to the class of 65 non-P5 schools that they constitute an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the 65 non-P5 FBS football teams to compete in the college football playoffs is a matter that only the U.S. court system can resolve.

.

(05-19-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 03:26 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 11:01 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 10:14 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It seems to have made no impact on you whatsoever that the number of non-P5 FBS teams in the Final Top 25 has grown from 4 in 2016 to 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 8 in 2020. That's a 100% increase in just four years.

But, oddly, that hasn't caused your opinion to change in the slightest.

While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

That's what basically every current P5 team said prior to inviting a new school to join their conf.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the B1G thought about Nebraska, Maryland or Rutgers that way. I don't think the SEC thought about Mizzou and TAMU that way. I don't think the PAC thought about Utah and Colorado that way. I don't think the Big 12 thought about WV and TCU that way and I don't think the ACC thought about Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville that way.

In all those cases, the conference chose the teams as part of some broader expansion ambition (e.g., Maryland, TAMU, Pitt, Utah) or in desperation after a raid (TCU, WV, Louisville). I don't see any of those situations as analogous to Boise and the AAC right now.

Again, the preference in the conference is to be at 12 teams playing divisions. Thus, the AAC still needs one. Im all for being patient---and standing pat until a high value added target is willing to join---but if that target presents itself--its time to go back to 12. That said---my preference is to go to 12 with Boise as a football only and VCU as a non-football member. That kind of move makes us a better conference in both major revenue sports....which is in line with long term AAC goals.

Nothing could be better than for Boise to enter the AAC with the remaining cachet they have and experience a losing season in conference while winning all of the OOC games. That would HAVE to be interpreted by the talking heads (and pollsters) as "I guess the American really is P6..."

(05-24-2021 10:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 03:26 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 11:01 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

That's what basically every current P5 team said prior to inviting a new school to join their conf.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the B1G thought about Nebraska, Maryland or Rutgers that way. I don't think the SEC thought about Mizzou and TAMU that way. I don't think the PAC thought about Utah and Colorado that way. I don't think the Big 12 thought about WV and TCU that way and I don't think the ACC thought about Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville that way.

In all those cases, the conference chose the teams as part of some broader expansion ambition (e.g., Maryland, TAMU, Pitt, Utah) or in desperation after a raid (TCU, WV, Louisville). I don't see any of those situations as analogous to Boise and the AAC right now.

Again, the preference in the conference is to be at 12 teams playing divisions. Thus, the AAC still needs one. I'm all for being patient---and standing pat until a high value added target is willing to join---but if that target presents itself--its time to go back to 12.

12 is clearly the preference right now. If the conference could add FB and BB school(s) from their short list, it would be perceived as a much-needed game-changer for the American at this point. It might even give a bit of a boost to the CFP expansion movement by moving the AAC closer to parity with a P5 conference.

(05-24-2021 10:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said---my preference is to go to 12 with Boise as a football only and VCU as a non-football member.

That would be an outstanding combination!

Importantly, Boise St. is the only non-P5 school in the nation that has had four teams finish in the final AP Top 10 and one or more in the top five since 2005. BSU also leads all non-P5 schools in number of final AP Top 25 teams (seven) since 2009. Thus, if anything, Boise St. would help to pull some of the AAC chestnuts out of the fire - - not the other way around.

Adding VCU would boost the AAC's stature in men's basketball as much as the addition of Wichita State did, and - all by itself - would transform the AAC into a potential five-NCAA-bid conference with the ability to send an average of 3.5 to 4 teams per year to the NCAA tournament (up from the current average of 3 bids per year).

(05-24-2021 10:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That kind of move makes us a better conference in both major revenue sports....which is in line with long term AAC goals.

Absolutely, and it would also generate significantly more viewership, making the American a more profitable partner for ESPN, which would be likely to yield dividends for the conference down the road.

.

(05-24-2021 10:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 03:26 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 11:01 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  While the trend is good...one has to basically throw away the 2020 season.

You had some SEC Teams that ended up playing 10-11 plus games while you had other P5 teams that played just 4 TOTAL games all year long (Cal, Arizona St, Washington St).

Some MAC teams ended up playing just 3 games last year.

Heck...you had many other teams that played just 5 regular season games (including Ohio State).

Key stat in favor of AAC is the following:

Since the conf was formed in 2013, here is the "G5" team who played in the BCS/NYD6 Bowl Game:

2013: AAC: UCF (Won Fiesta Bowl...was Big East Auto Spot but would have been selected in NYD6 Format)

2014: MWC: Boise St (Won Fiesta Bowl)

2015: AAC: Houston (Won Peach Bowl)

2016: MAC: Western Michigan (Lost Orange Bowl)

2017: AAC: UCF (Won Peach Bowl)

2018: AAC: UCF (Lost Peach Bowl

2019: AAC: Memphis (Lost Cotton Bowl)

2020: AAC: Cincinnati (Lost Peach Bowl)

NOTE: AAC dominance of the above is also why Boise State's former HC (now Auburn HC) wanted so desperately to get out of the MWC and join the AAC..because winning that conf usually means jack squat for the conf champ (i.e. no NYD6 bid most years).

Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

That's what basically every current P5 team said prior to inviting a new school to join their conf.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the B1G thought about Nebraska, Maryland or Rutgers that way. I don't think the SEC thought about Mizzou and TAMU that way. I don't think the PAC thought about Utah and Colorado that way. I don't think the Big 12 thought about WV and TCU that way and I don't think the ACC thought about Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville that way.

In all those cases, the conference chose the teams as part of some broader expansion ambition (e.g., Maryland, TAMU, Pitt, Utah) or in desperation after a raid (TCU, WV, Louisville). I don't see any of those situations as analogous to Boise and the AAC right now.

Again, the preference in the conference is to be at 12 teams playing divisions. Thus, the AAC still needs one. Im all for being patient---and standing pat until a high value added target is willing to join---but if that target presents itself--its time to go back to 12. That said---my preference is to go to 12 with Boise as a football only and VCU as a non-football member. That kind of move makes us a better conference in both major revenue sports....which is in line with long term AAC goals.

Boise State basketball has the same potential as VCU basketball. Yes its tough to travel to Boise for basketball but VCU basketball is not easy travel.

(05-24-2021 11:03 AM)DeeHee33 Wrote:  

(05-24-2021 10:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-19-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 03:26 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-17-2021 01:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the key stat is that the AAC has had the NY6 bid four years in a row. That's major.

And yes, it's also why Boise is interested in joining the AAC. It's also why I'm against allowing Boise in to the AAC. Why pull their chestnuts out of the fire? We don't need them.

That's what basically every current P5 team said prior to inviting a new school to join their conf.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the B1G thought about Nebraska, Maryland or Rutgers that way. I don't think the SEC thought about Mizzou and TAMU that way. I don't think the PAC thought about Utah and Colorado that way. I don't think the Big 12 thought about WV and TCU that way and I don't think the ACC thought about Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville that way.

In all those cases, the conference chose the teams as part of some broader expansion ambition (e.g., Maryland, TAMU, Pitt, Utah) or in desperation after a raid (TCU, WV, Louisville). I don't see any of those situations as analogous to Boise and the AAC right now.

Again, the preference in the conference is to be at 12 teams playing divisions. Thus, the AAC still needs one. Im all for being patient---and standing pat until a high value added target is willing to join---but if that target presents itself--its time to go back to 12. That said---my preference is to go to 12 with Boise as a football only and VCU as a non-football member. That kind of move makes us a better conference in both major revenue sports....which is in line with long term AAC goals.

Boise State basketball has the same potential as VCU basketball. Yes its tough to travel to Boise for basketball but VCU basketball is not easy travel.

Those are debatable points, but by far the most important fact is that Boise State is the only non-P5/non-AAC school in the country that has had multiple top-10 teams since 2005. No other FB school that the American could add has had a comparable track record over the past 20 years.

For that reason alone, when one considers that 80% of college sports revenue is generated by football, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would make sense to add Boise State as an all-sports school, regardless (even if BSU didn't have a successful mbb program).

The only reasons that have made against adding Boise for all-sports are easily refuted:

1) "The travel distance would be prohibitive:" A detailed study has shown that Boise St. could become an all-sports member without any increase in travel distance for any of the AAC sports The only requirements would be divisional play (FB) and divisional scheduling with limited (no home/away series) cross-divisional play for all other sports.

2) "The conference needs to boost its stature in men's basketball, and BSU would get in the way." The first part of this sentence is correct, but there would be nothing to prevent the conference from adding BSU (all-sports) and add an upper-echelon BB school such as VCU. This would leave the American with 12 FB and 13 BB schools, that wouldn't present any serious problems - to put it mildly.

--Some might ask: "But what if the conference wants to expand to 14 teams - - wouldn't the addition of BSU (all-sports) make that impossible)?"

--The answer is simple: The AAC emerged from the Big East conference, which was a hybrid conference with more basketball than football schools. There is thus ample precedent within the conference's own history for having one additional basketball school.

--Moreover, if the American eventually wishes to expand to 14, the addition of both a football and a basketball powerhouse (Boise State & VCU) would only make it easier for the conference to convince two more high-quality FB/BB schools to join the AAC.

.