(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2021 08:51 PM by BruceMcF.)
(06-13-2021 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: I’m not ready to say that AAC western expansion is closed and sealed. If this expanded playoff happens, Boise, BYU, and others will have to reconsider what their best options are given the changes. Building a true P6 could very well be the way to go.
This is true, but we will have to be patient because the expanded playoffs will likely be at least 2 years down the road.
SMUstang
Right. Here’s the model I think would work really well:
The 2 basketball schools are optional but I think their inclusion would result in some savings as it would allow for mostly/exclusively divisional play in many non-revenue sports.
I think it will take close to a year to see the new playoff approved so there is time to get things together in time for 2023.
But that’s not going to happen. None of those programs are consistent enough. Remember Fresno State? Remember Nevada? Remember Hawaii? It is so pointless to hedge your bets on any group of G5 programs for the long term. It’s just not smart and the powers that be know it.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2021 09:35 PM by esayem.)
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
That was kind of my point that you missed. If the AAC becomes a power conference by way of performance now that they are not locked out of the postseason ("autonomy" or not), then staying as the little brother independent is a moot point.
And yes, I was saying that IF the optimism is borne out, then BYU would be calling. It's why I used the IF above.
(06-13-2021 08:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
That was kind of my point that you missed. If the AAC becomes a power conference by way of performance now that they are not locked out of the postseason ("autonomy" or not), then staying as the little brother independent is a moot point.
And yes, I was saying that IF the optimism is borne out, then BYU would be calling. It's why I used the IF above.
But the if that you said was:
Quote: If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't) ...
... which is not the IF that is relevant. The IF that is relevant is that the AAC is widely perceived to be equal or superior to the PAC-12 in status.
You may assume that this follows from your premise ... where the premise itself seems quite a long shot ... but even if it followed eventually from your premise, it's not the reality of competitiveness that governs it, it's the perceived status that governs it.
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2021 09:49 AM by BruceMcF.)
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
.... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2021 06:19 PM by quo vadis.)
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
.... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
I wouldn't go that far. It's known that ESPN took at least a portion of a share from the UConn exit (a UConn share, mind you, but not zero). So for one, BYU's payout probably wouldn't be 100% funded by all of us taking a cut. Also, it can be argued that BYU has a fanbase that rivals the likes of Houston/Cincinnati/ECU, and would be among the top of the AAC.
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
.... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
Nothing is stopping Boise in achieving the exact same thing in the MWC. BYU could do the same in the MWC. They don’t need the AAC and the AAC doesn’t need them. But BYU would NEVER join a G5 conference as long as Utah is in a power conference. They’d rather believe they play a semi P5 schedule as an independent than playing a G5 scheduling in the MWC or AAC.
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
Bingo. In other words:
LOL
The G5’s will NEVER overtake the Pac-12. USC alone has more brand recognition and pedigree than the entire G5’s together. The Pac-12 has 10 flagships/land grant institutions and two elite private universities. Nine AAU universities. You know, things school presidents care about.
Weren’t the AAC fanboys saying the same thing about Pac-12 basketball as recently as last year? Then the Conference of Champions sent three teams to the Elite Eight and one to the Final Four.
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
.... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
Nothing is stopping Boise in achieving the exact same thing in the MWC. BYU could do the same in the MWC. They don’t need the AAC and the AAC doesn’t need them. But BYU would NEVER join a G5 conference as long as Utah is in a power conference. They’d rather believe they play a semi P5 schedule as an independent than playing a G5 scheduling in the MWC or AAC.
If that's BYU's decision then that's a flawed mindset. The AAC as it stands today would have BCS AQ status and is making their case for autonomy status. Has gone to the NY6 bowl 5 of the last 7 years. And has had 3 different teams in serious discussions for inclusion in the CFP under its current format. It's possible we achieve autonomy status without BYU but adding BYU to the conference only strengthens the argument. Adding BYU to the MWC gets them none of those things.
The AAC and its members aren't taking a wait and see if someone gives it to me approach to moving up, they're challenging it head on. If BYU decides to wait and see if someone gives it to it's a bad choice. Lets say the AAC does it without them and they call after to come join the party without contributing at all when they were called on to help make it happen I can see the conference saying no thank you unless ESPN wants to make a significant increase to the TV contract.
All that said I think the two happen simultaneously via our CFB overlords at ESPN.
(06-13-2021 08:17 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote: I get that, but that argument applies current norms to a future situation. If the AAC ends up going to the playoff as much or more than the PAC-12(and more importantly, BYU doesn't), then you can call one conference a power conference and one not, but it would make joining up pretty appealing.
You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
Bingo. In other words:
LOL
The G5’s will NEVER overtake the Pac-12. USC alone has more brand recognition and pedigree than the entire G5’s together. The Pac-12 has 10 flagships/land grant institutions and two elite private universities. Nine AAU universities. You know, things school presidents care about.
Weren’t the AAC fanboys saying the same thing about Pac-12 basketball as recently as last year? Then the Conference of Champions sent three teams to the Elite Eight and one to the Final Four.
But the CFP, ESPN and CFB fans don't care about those things. The Ivy League is better at all of those things and they don't play in the FBS. The Pac 12 has a big problem on their hands, they've been fading from relevancy for a while now. It's going to be interesting to see what the new commissioner does to address it.
(06-13-2021 08:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
.... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
Nothing is stopping Boise in achieving the exact same thing in the MWC. BYU could do the same in the MWC. They don’t need the AAC and the AAC doesn’t need them. But BYU would NEVER join a G5 conference as long as Utah is in a power conference. They’d rather believe they play a semi P5 schedule as an independent than playing a G5 scheduling in the MWC or AAC.
If that's BYU's decision then that's a flawed mindset. The AAC as it stands today would have BCS AQ status and is making their case for autonomy status. Has gone to the NY6 bowl 5 of the last 7 years. And has had 3 different teams in serious discussions for inclusion in the CFP under its current format. It's possible we achieve autonomy status without BYU but adding BYU to the conference only strengthens the argument. Adding BYU to the MWC gets them none of those things.
The AAC and its members aren't taking a wait and see if someone gives it to me approach to moving up, they're challenging it head on. If BYU decides to wait and see if someone gives it to it's a bad choice. Lets say the AAC does it without them and they call after to come join the party without contributing at all when they were called on to help make it happen I can see the conference saying no thank you unless ESPN wants to make a significant increase to the TV contract.
All that said I think the two happen simultaneously via our CFB overlords at ESPN.
Stop.
The MWC didn’t even get to become the 7th BCS conference even though they met two of the three criteria to qualify. The MWC had a better product at the top (Utah, BYU and TCU) than anything the AAC has. Craig Thompson was all over bragging how his conference was the 7th AQ league and even questioned the Big East spot in the BCS. Do you know what was the MWC’s slogan? “Above the Rest”
Sounds familiar?
I tell AAC fanboys now what I used to tell MWC fanboys over a decade ago. Schools get promoted not entire conferences. As soon as you become a threat, the cartel in complicity with ESPN will destroy you by taking two perhaps three schools and call it a day. That’s exactly what happened to the MWC and the same will happen to the AAC. It’s deja vu all over again.
(06-13-2021 08:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: You say "I get that" then say words that show you don't get it. From BYU's perspective, "pretty appealing" doesn't change the fact that the PAC-12 is perceived as a power conference and the AAC is not.
Also, the notion that the AAC as presently constituted would have as many or more appearances as the PAC-12 is more than a little optimistic ... BYU is just the most extreme example of "if you are saying our joining will make the AAC a compelling conference to join within a few years after we join ... that implies it's not a compelling conference to join now."
Now, if that optimism is borne out, and you have a situation where people start thinking of both the AAC and the PAC-12 as tweener conferences ... well, if the view is spread widely in the general public, then give BYU a call.
Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
Bingo. In other words:
LOL
The G5’s will NEVER overtake the Pac-12. USC alone has more brand recognition and pedigree than the entire G5’s together. The Pac-12 has 10 flagships/land grant institutions and two elite private universities. Nine AAU universities. You know, things school presidents care about.
Weren’t the AAC fanboys saying the same thing about Pac-12 basketball as recently as last year? Then the Conference of Champions sent three teams to the Elite Eight and one to the Final Four.
But the CFP, ESPN and CFB fans don't care about those things. The Ivy League is better at all of those things and they don't play in the FBS. The Pac 12 has a big problem on their hands, they've been fading from relevancy for a while now. It's going to be interesting to see what the new commissioner does to address it.
The Ivy League is not FBS so it’s an apples to oranges comparison.
The Pac-12 needed new leadership and they just got rid of Larry Scott. They’re going in a new direction so no, the AAC or the MWC are not overtaking the Pac-12 in anything. The Pac-12 is part of the cartel and will be part of the cartel for the foreseeable future.
(06-14-2021 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
.... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
Nothing is stopping Boise in achieving the exact same thing in the MWC. BYU could do the same in the MWC. They don’t need the AAC and the AAC doesn’t need them. But BYU would NEVER join a G5 conference as long as Utah is in a power conference. They’d rather believe they play a semi P5 schedule as an independent than playing a G5 scheduling in the MWC or AAC.
If that's BYU's decision then that's a flawed mindset. The AAC as it stands today would have BCS AQ status and is making their case for autonomy status. Has gone to the NY6 bowl 5 of the last 7 years. And has had 3 different teams in serious discussions for inclusion in the CFP under its current format. It's possible we achieve autonomy status without BYU but adding BYU to the conference only strengthens the argument. Adding BYU to the MWC gets them none of those things.
The AAC and its members aren't taking a wait and see if someone gives it to me approach to moving up, they're challenging it head on. If BYU decides to wait and see if someone gives it to it's a bad choice. Lets say the AAC does it without them and they call after to come join the party without contributing at all when they were called on to help make it happen I can see the conference saying no thank you unless ESPN wants to make a significant increase to the TV contract.
All that said I think the two happen simultaneously via our CFB overlords at ESPN.
Stop.
The MWC didn’t even get to become the 7th BCS conference even though they met two of the three criteria to qualify. The MWC had a better product at the top (Utah, BYU and TCU) than anything the AAC has. Craig Thompson was all over bragging how his conference was the 7th AQ league and even questioned the Big East spot in the BCS. Do you know what was the MWC’s slogan? “Above the Rest”
Sounds familiar?
I tell AAC fanboys now what I used to tell MWC fanboys over a decade ago. Schools get promoted not entire conferences. As soon as you become a threat, the cartel in complicity with ESPN will destroy you by taking two perhaps three schools and call it a day. That’s exactly what happened to the MWC and the same will happen to the AAC. It’s deja vu all over again.
Apparently the old MW didnt "have a better product". It turns out the AAC has HIT ALL THREE of the criteria to qualify for an AQ slot as defined by the old BCS agreement. Thats something the old MW never accomplished. I thought that was an interesting tidbit buried in the letter Aresco wrote to the A5 conferences.
(06-14-2021 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: Your misunderstanding his argument. His argument isn’t that BYU would join the ACC because it’s a power conference. His argument is that they might find the AAC’s path to the playoff appealing enough to join—-which would potentially push the AAC over the threshold of being considered a lower level power conference similar to the Big East. I don’t think that’s the case, but if the AAC Champ is in the playoff most years, in a short time the AAC conference race could easily be perceived more interesting and prestigious than BYU”s status as an Indy.....Such a change in the perception landscape could end up causing BYU to review its past assumptions with respect to its indy status.
.... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
Nothing is stopping Boise in achieving the exact same thing in the MWC. BYU could do the same in the MWC. They don’t need the AAC and the AAC doesn’t need them. But BYU would NEVER join a G5 conference as long as Utah is in a power conference. They’d rather believe they play a semi P5 schedule as an independent than playing a G5 scheduling in the MWC or AAC.
If that's BYU's decision then that's a flawed mindset. The AAC as it stands today would have BCS AQ status and is making their case for autonomy status. Has gone to the NY6 bowl 5 of the last 7 years. And has had 3 different teams in serious discussions for inclusion in the CFP under its current format. It's possible we achieve autonomy status without BYU but adding BYU to the conference only strengthens the argument. Adding BYU to the MWC gets them none of those things.
The AAC and its members aren't taking a wait and see if someone gives it to me approach to moving up, they're challenging it head on. If BYU decides to wait and see if someone gives it to it's a bad choice. Lets say the AAC does it without them and they call after to come join the party without contributing at all when they were called on to help make it happen I can see the conference saying no thank you unless ESPN wants to make a significant increase to the TV contract.
All that said I think the two happen simultaneously via our CFB overlords at ESPN.
Stop.
The MWC didn’t even get to become the 7th BCS conference even though they met two of the three criteria to qualify. The MWC had a better product at the top (Utah, BYU and TCU) than anything the AAC has. Craig Thompson was all over bragging how his conference was the 7th AQ league and even questioned the Big East spot in the BCS. Do you know what was the MWC’s slogan? “Above the Rest”
Sounds familiar?
I tell AAC fanboys now what I used to tell MWC fanboys over a decade ago. Schools get promoted not entire conferences. As soon as you become a threat, the cartel in complicity with ESPN will destroy you by taking two perhaps three schools and call it a day. That’s exactly what happened to the MWC and the same will happen to the AAC. It’s deja vu all over again.
No offense to Utah, BYU and TCU but they are not a better product than the top of the AAC nor do they have the achievements of the top of the AAC. The MWC had 2/3, almost got there but didn't. The AAC has well surpassed all 3. The illusion of the AAC as a meager "group of" conference has been exposed. The only chance they don't join the club is if the top members, 3-5 of them, are poached.
(06-14-2021 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote: .... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
Nothing is stopping Boise in achieving the exact same thing in the MWC. BYU could do the same in the MWC. They don’t need the AAC and the AAC doesn’t need them. But BYU would NEVER join a G5 conference as long as Utah is in a power conference. They’d rather believe they play a semi P5 schedule as an independent than playing a G5 scheduling in the MWC or AAC.
If that's BYU's decision then that's a flawed mindset. The AAC as it stands today would have BCS AQ status and is making their case for autonomy status. Has gone to the NY6 bowl 5 of the last 7 years. And has had 3 different teams in serious discussions for inclusion in the CFP under its current format. It's possible we achieve autonomy status without BYU but adding BYU to the conference only strengthens the argument. Adding BYU to the MWC gets them none of those things.
The AAC and its members aren't taking a wait and see if someone gives it to me approach to moving up, they're challenging it head on. If BYU decides to wait and see if someone gives it to it's a bad choice. Lets say the AAC does it without them and they call after to come join the party without contributing at all when they were called on to help make it happen I can see the conference saying no thank you unless ESPN wants to make a significant increase to the TV contract.
All that said I think the two happen simultaneously via our CFB overlords at ESPN.
Stop.
The MWC didn’t even get to become the 7th BCS conference even though they met two of the three criteria to qualify. The MWC had a better product at the top (Utah, BYU and TCU) than anything the AAC has. Craig Thompson was all over bragging how his conference was the 7th AQ league and even questioned the Big East spot in the BCS. Do you know what was the MWC’s slogan? “Above the Rest”
Sounds familiar?
I tell AAC fanboys now what I used to tell MWC fanboys over a decade ago. Schools get promoted not entire conferences. As soon as you become a threat, the cartel in complicity with ESPN will destroy you by taking two perhaps three schools and call it a day. That’s exactly what happened to the MWC and the same will happen to the AAC. It’s deja vu all over again.
No offense to Utah, BYU and TCU but they are not a better product than the top of the AAC nor do they have the achievements of the top of the AAC. The MWC had 2/3, almost got there but didn't. The AAC has well surpassed all 3. The illusion of the AAC as a meager "group of" conference has been exposed. The only chance they don't join the club is if the top members, 3-5 of them, are poached.
(06-14-2021 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote: .... which is a reason why I don't think the AAC should invite BYU. To me, if the AAC just performs the way it has the past seven years, it should be able to achieve its achievable goals without Boise or BYU. We would just be throwing them a life-line and feeding their mouths for little to no benefit.
Nothing is stopping Boise in achieving the exact same thing in the MWC. BYU could do the same in the MWC. They don’t need the AAC and the AAC doesn’t need them. But BYU would NEVER join a G5 conference as long as Utah is in a power conference. They’d rather believe they play a semi P5 schedule as an independent than playing a G5 scheduling in the MWC or AAC.
If that's BYU's decision then that's a flawed mindset. The AAC as it stands today would have BCS AQ status and is making their case for autonomy status. Has gone to the NY6 bowl 5 of the last 7 years. And has had 3 different teams in serious discussions for inclusion in the CFP under its current format. It's possible we achieve autonomy status without BYU but adding BYU to the conference only strengthens the argument. Adding BYU to the MWC gets them none of those things.
The AAC and its members aren't taking a wait and see if someone gives it to me approach to moving up, they're challenging it head on. If BYU decides to wait and see if someone gives it to it's a bad choice. Lets say the AAC does it without them and they call after to come join the party without contributing at all when they were called on to help make it happen I can see the conference saying no thank you unless ESPN wants to make a significant increase to the TV contract.
All that said I think the two happen simultaneously via our CFB overlords at ESPN.
Stop.
The MWC didn’t even get to become the 7th BCS conference even though they met two of the three criteria to qualify. The MWC had a better product at the top (Utah, BYU and TCU) than anything the AAC has. Craig Thompson was all over bragging how his conference was the 7th AQ league and even questioned the Big East spot in the BCS. Do you know what was the MWC’s slogan? “Above the Rest”
Sounds familiar?
I tell AAC fanboys now what I used to tell MWC fanboys over a decade ago. Schools get promoted not entire conferences. As soon as you become a threat, the cartel in complicity with ESPN will destroy you by taking two perhaps three schools and call it a day. That’s exactly what happened to the MWC and the same will happen to the AAC. It’s deja vu all over again.
Apparently the old MW didnt "have a better product". It turns out the AAC has HIT ALL THREE of the criteria to qualify for an AQ slot as defined by the old BCS agreement. Thats something the old MW never accomplished. I thought that was an interesting tidbit buried in the letter Aresco wrote to the A5 conferences.
And guess what? The AAC wouldn’t become the 7th AQ then nor it will be part of the CFP now and that’s been my entire freaking point lately. It doesn’t matter how good you can become, at the end of the day, the cartel will go after you and make sure you go back to the bottom. Heck, the cartel with ESPN’s blessing destroyed one of their own by taking the Big East’s best properties and the AQ along the way. The same will happen to the AAC if somehow becomes a threat to the ACC and Big XII (the Pac-12 took care of business by destroying the MWC in 2010) in getting spots that they believe belong to them (it’s all about the $$$) and out of the blue the likes of Houston and Cincinnati get a spot in the cartel.
/
Game Over: AAC shuts the door on Boise
