Was it last year or the year before that AAC football actually rated ahead of the ACC? I think it was when UConn dropped out:-)

The AAC raises its stature by not adding. It's a statement. The AAC won't add a school it does not regard as good enough.

(06-11-2021 09:13 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Has Aresco not taken heed of what he reads on this site???

We need to immediately add BYU ...and Boise... and SDSU and Colorado St and App St. and Coastal Carolina and Northern Illinois and Geaorgia St. and North Dakota St. and La Tech and Old Dominion and UMass and...

100%, the only way to replace UC whom is heading to BIG XII/NBE/BIG 19... just something BIG according to my sources.

(06-12-2021 08:01 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Was it last year or the year before that AAC football actually rated ahead of the ACC? I think it was when UConn dropped out:-)

Yes. It was a clear case of "Addition by Subtraction".

(06-12-2021 07:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 07:34 AM)PirateJP Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 06:55 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  I think it's going to be tough for BYU to get one of the six at larges as an independent - even if they play as well as last year. The reason the SEC supported this was because they were probably get 3 in on average most years including their champion and runner-up. Then theres Notre Dame. That's easily three of the six spots before you even get to the Big 12, Big Ten, ACC, and the PAC runner ups.

I honestly wouldn’t worry about the ACC and PAC runners up. The costal division is garbage. And the PAC champion finished 25th in the standings last year. If the bottom of this league ever improves watch out.

The PAC teams play what, an average of six games apiece last year. Plus Washington couldn't play in the championship game because of covid
--- so they substituted a lesser Oregon. Oregon wasn't supposed to win against USC but they did and got ranked. Covid made last year the anomalies of anomalies.... Especially in the PAC. Don't expect to see that again least until the next pandemic.

Sooo... Next year in California? That laves 7 teams to play another 6 game season

BYU will not be in the top 12 in 9 out of 10 years. They aren’t good enough. Their Indy schedule will basically assure it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-11-2021 08:34 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 08:30 PM)RockyMTNTiger Wrote:  Why would BYU favor the AAC over the MWC? They have history with the western teams and the path to the access would seem to be easier in the MWC. Moreover, the MWC has proven it will roll over and offer sweetheart deals while the AAC just the opposite.

So as I look at it - BYU becomes a threat to push the MWC to more of an equal footing with the AAC. Where am I wrong here?

BYU is not joining the MWC with Utah in the PAC.

Otherwise marginally yes you would be right, but BYU can get a top 12 ranking with a one loss or two loss independent schedule it currently has. That means it's unlikely they will be joining any non-A5 conference.

Man, I just don't see that. Maybe with one loss to somebody really awesome.

A two loss, independent BYU can still be in the top 12?

I know they play a good independent schedule, but I just don't see voters or computers giving them enough credit to be top 12 with two losses.

I guess it could happen. Someone wins the Powerball every month or so.

TM

(06-12-2021 08:25 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  BYU will not be in the top 12 in 9 out of 10 years. They aren’t good enough. Their Indy schedule will basically assure it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, hopefully they'll see that in a new model, if adopted, they have a better chance to get in in any given year in the AAC than Indy. They are really the only team we are interested in adding, and I think they'd be a big plus for our media eyeballs whether they are competitive or not, something zero other candidates can say.

I believe there is another factor at play within AAC that is of much more consequence than adding BYU or expanding to 12 or 14 teams. I believe Aresco asked AAC schools to schedule two strong nonconference games against P5 schools and AAC conference schools have largely responded. Is that correct? A victory here by an AAC school would have just as much impact if not more than a victory over BYU.

Then, too, AAC schools are scheduling BYU, sort of an informal arrangement rather than a cooperative agreement like ND/ACC. But I think Aresco called for more AAC/BYU nonconference games (probably with the idea of enticing BYU to join AAC in the future I would guess). One-half or one-third a BYU loaf is better than no BYU loaf at all. BYU would be better off adding more AAC football games rather than playing some of the current schools on their schedule. As an aside, maybe schedule some AAC/BYU basketball games to get BYU thinking more about AAC membership.

BYU VS AAC FOOTBALL GAMES:
2021: USF @BYU
2022: BYU @USF, ECU TBA
2023: USF @BYU, BYU @UCF
2024: UCF @BYU, BYU @ECU

OTHER BYU FOOTBALL GAMES:
2021: Idaho State, @Georgia Southern
2022: BYU @Liberty, Dixie State @BYU
2023: Southern Utah @BYU
2024: Georgia Southern @BYU, Dixie State

Another form of "expansion" is playing 9 conference football games. The Big 12 plays 9 conference games and then one tough nonconference game. Baylor caught holy hell for their patsy nonconference schedule but has improved its nonconference schedule because of criticism within the B12 leadership. I prefer for AAC to stay at 8 conference football games. For B12, playing 9 conference games was meant to add more games to the B12 TV inventory to boost their TV contract....but isn't that what drives a lot of conference expansion?

(06-12-2021 09:17 AM)Tulsa Guy Wrote:  I believe there is another factor at play within AAC that is of much more consequence than adding BYU or expanding to 12 or 14 teams. I believe Aresco asked AAC schools to schedule two strong nonconference games against P5 schools and AAC conference schools have largely responded. Is that correct? A victory here by an AAC school would have just as much impact if not more than a victory over BYU.

Then, too, AAC schools are scheduling BYU, sort of an informal arrangement rather than a cooperative agreement like ND/ACC. But I think Aresco called for more AAC/BYU nonconference games (probably with the idea of enticing BYU to join AAC in the future I would guess). One-half or one-third a BYU loaf is better than no BYU loaf at all. BYU would be better off adding more AAC football games rather than playing some of the current schools on their schedule. As an aside, maybe schedule some AAC/BYU basketball games to get BYU thinking more about AAC membership.

BYU VS AAC FOOTBALL GAMES:
2021: USF @BYU
2022: BYU @USF, ECU TBA
2023: USF @BYU, BYU @UCF
2024: UCF @BYU, BYU @ECU

OTHER BYU FOOTBALL GAMES:
2021: Idaho State, @Georgia Southern
2022: BYU @Liberty, Dixie State @BYU
2023: Southern Utah @BYU
2024: Georgia Southern @BYU, Dixie State

Another form of "expansion" is playing 9 conference football games. The Big 12 plays 9 conference games and then one tough nonconference game. Baylor caught holy hell for their patsy nonconference schedule but has improved its nonconference schedule because of criticism within the B12 leadership. I prefer for AAC to stay at 8 conference football games. For B12, playing 9 conference games was meant to add more games to the B12 TV inventory to boost their TV contract....but isn't that what drives a lot of conference expansion?

The Big12 had to play 9 conference games as per the rules, they had to play a complete round-robin.

(06-12-2021 07:50 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  I think BYU will take its time looking at it and the AAC will stand pat. This won’t happen until 2023 at the earliest
Even under new conditions they wouldn’t have qualified for playoffs in past 10 years including last year when they lost 1 game. Their Independence status is all about appearing to be the equal of Utah. The AAC now with the 6 top conference champions in playoffs will give them a chance to do that. Remember AAC champ has finished ahead of PAC champions recently

The AAC’s metrics clearly plant us as inside a P6. Some metrics we are better than the ACC and another the Pac12. They’re few right now but with greater access we will attract more future NFL players and continue winning at a higher and higher level. The four team playoff has made it easy for the teams who were already at the top to stay there and attract the best athletes from all over. A lot of kids in Pac12 country headed to the Sec and Big Ten teams recently. The transfer rule has helped the AAC overall with regard to talent, and I think you will see a lot of changing dynamics at work in the near future as the NIL changes the landscape and the playoff evolves into a more inclusive version of itself.the future is bright for the AAC.

(06-12-2021 08:42 AM)Tigermemphis Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 08:34 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 08:30 PM)RockyMTNTiger Wrote:  Why would BYU favor the AAC over the MWC? They have history with the western teams and the path to the access would seem to be easier in the MWC. Moreover, the MWC has proven it will roll over and offer sweetheart deals while the AAC just the opposite.

So as I look at it - BYU becomes a threat to push the MWC to more of an equal footing with the AAC. Where am I wrong here?

BYU is not joining the MWC with Utah in the PAC.

Otherwise marginally yes you would be right, but BYU can get a top 12 ranking with a one loss or two loss independent schedule it currently has. That means it's unlikely they will be joining any non-A5 conference.

Man, I just don't see that. Maybe with one loss to somebody really awesome.

A two loss, independent BYU can still be in the top 12?

I know they play a good independent schedule, but I just don't see voters or computers giving them enough credit to be top 12 with two losses.

I guess it could happen. Someone wins the Powerball every month or so.

TM

I think pretty much the same way - and, the fact that they play a tougher schedule as an independent just makes their access path harder. The committee is still going to look after its own in the ranking system if that remains the same and BYU ain't no ND. All of which translates into both the MWC Champion and the AAC Champion battling it out most years. So - despite some very good reasons that BYU would stay independent or never go back to the MWC - they are in something of a King Maker position. We don't need them - but them going MWC, however slight that possibility might be, would act to even that particular playing field against us. Seems logical.

No reason to add anyone if we aren’t going to have divisions. No more conference championship games when our waiver expires.

I’m not the biggest fan of co-champions but maybe we can get 2 teams in the top12.

(06-12-2021 08:25 AM)tnzazz Wrote:  BYU will not be in the top 12 in 9 out of 10 years. They aren’t good enough. Their Indy schedule will basically assure it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought the same thing. They're riding a high from last year and are feeling all uppity right now. The next mediocre season they have, they'll want in for sure.

(06-12-2021 11:13 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  No reason to add anyone if we aren’t going to have divisions. No more conference championship games when our waiver expires.

I’m not the biggest fan of co-champions but maybe we can get 2 teams in the top12.

The championship game is not going away

Its contractually obligated, we can play it with uneven divisions if we have to. But the waiver is only going away if there is a rule change which seems almost guaranteed now.

The big questions will be

#1 will they change the rules for hosting a championship game to all leagues. Like the top two ranked teams in league regardless of divisions. I could see this going forward because it would benefit all.

#2 If #1 doesn’t happen, I believe according to rules AAC can still hold a championship as long as there is divisional round robin play.

(06-12-2021 11:39 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  The big questions will be

#1 will they change the rules for hosting a championship game to all leagues. Like the top two ranked teams in league regardless of divisions. I could see this going forward because it would benefit all.

#2 If #1 doesn’t happen, I believe according to rules AAC can still hold a championship as long as there is divisional round robin play.

It won't be that. It will likely be an add on like the round robin was. So either you will play a round robin, a division set up, or have a set schedule where you play every team in your conference at least once every three years. So the reverse of divisional scheduling where you will have two or three teams every year and rotate the other five or six games through the remaining teams in the conference.

So for the AAC it could be two permanent rivals, then six games rotated through eight teams. Or it could be three permanent rivals, then five games rotated through seven teams.

This will keep conferences coherent and scheduling fair, it also opens the door for some teams in the ACC and SEC to actually revive some rivalries they have seen wain with the expanded line ups and only playing the other team twice in ten years.

(06-12-2021 12:56 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:39 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  The big questions will be

#1 will they change the rules for hosting a championship game to all leagues. Like the top two ranked teams in league regardless of divisions. I could see this going forward because it would benefit all.

#2 If #1 doesn’t happen, I believe according to rules AAC can still hold a championship as long as there is divisional round robin play.

It won't be that. It will likely be an add on like the round robin was. So either you will play a round robin, a division set up, or have a set schedule where you play every team in your conference at least once every three years. So the reverse of divisional scheduling where you will have two or three teams every year and rotate the other five or six games through the remaining teams in the conference.

So for the AAC it could be two permanent rivals, then six games rotated through eight teams. Or it could be three permanent rivals, then five games rotated through seven teams.

This will keep conferences coherent and scheduling fair, it also opens the door for some teams in the ACC and SEC to actually revive some rivalries they have seen wain with the expanded line ups and only playing the other team twice in ten years.

Unless we get an exception again or rules change. You must meet one of two conditions. Either you have divisional round robin or entire conference round robin as the BigTwelve does. Since we aren’t playing 10 conference games, the other choice would be divisional round robin with uneven divisions or just add a 12th

(06-12-2021 09:52 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:17 AM)Tulsa Guy Wrote:  I believe there is another factor at play within AAC that is of much more consequence than adding BYU or expanding to 12 or 14 teams. I believe Aresco asked AAC schools to schedule two strong nonconference games against P5 schools and AAC conference schools have largely responded. Is that correct? A victory here by an AAC school would have just as much impact if not more than a victory over BYU.

Then, too, AAC schools are scheduling BYU, sort of an informal arrangement rather than a cooperative agreement like ND/ACC. But I think Aresco called for more AAC/BYU nonconference games (probably with the idea of enticing BYU to join AAC in the future I would guess). One-half or one-third a BYU loaf is better than no BYU loaf at all. BYU would be better off adding more AAC football games rather than playing some of the current schools on their schedule. As an aside, maybe schedule some AAC/BYU basketball games to get BYU thinking more about AAC membership.

BYU VS AAC FOOTBALL GAMES:
2021: USF @BYU
2022: BYU @USF, ECU TBA
2023: USF @BYU, BYU @UCF
2024: UCF @BYU, BYU @ECU

OTHER BYU FOOTBALL GAMES:
2021: Idaho State, @Georgia Southern
2022: BYU @Liberty, Dixie State @BYU
2023: Southern Utah @BYU
2024: Georgia Southern @BYU, Dixie State

Another form of "expansion" is playing 9 conference football games. The Big 12 plays 9 conference games and then one tough nonconference game. Baylor caught holy hell for their patsy nonconference schedule but has improved its nonconference schedule because of criticism within the B12 leadership. I prefer for AAC to stay at 8 conference football games. For B12, playing 9 conference games was meant to add more games to the B12 TV inventory to boost their TV contract....but isn't that what drives a lot of conference expansion?

The Big12 had to play 9 conference games as per the rules, they had to play a complete round-robin.

As I recall, the Big 12 agreed to play 9 conference football games when the negotiated their TV contract with just 10 members so as to have a larger inventory for TV. The requirement to play a round robin (9 conference games for Big 12) came later. This taken from Wikipedia:

"In December 2014 after completing the first season with the College Football Playoff, Baylor and TCU both finished the season with 8-1 conference record and were declared co-champions by the conference despite Baylor's heat-to-head win over TCU. When the selection committee met to set the teams for the first playoff, both Baylor and TCU were overlooked in favor of teams that competed in and won their conference's championship game, leaving the Big 12 out of the playoffs. This led to criticism of how the Big 12 determined its champion."

In April 2015, legislation was developed by the ACC and Big 12 to deregulate conference championship games. It was announced by NCAA officials as being expected to pass in time for the 2016 season. The legislation passed on January 14, 2016 allowing a conference with fewer than 12 teams to stage a championship game between the top two teams, so long as they pay a round-robin schedule. In late 2016, the Big 12 decided to bring back the championship game in 2017 after a seven year long gap of having no conference championship game."

(06-12-2021 01:01 PM)Tulsa Guy Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:52 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:17 AM)Tulsa Guy Wrote:  I believe there is another factor at play within AAC that is of much more consequence than adding BYU or expanding to 12 or 14 teams. I believe Aresco asked AAC schools to schedule two strong nonconference games against P5 schools and AAC conference schools have largely responded. Is that correct? A victory here by an AAC school would have just as much impact if not more than a victory over BYU.

Then, too, AAC schools are scheduling BYU, sort of an informal arrangement rather than a cooperative agreement like ND/ACC. But I think Aresco called for more AAC/BYU nonconference games (probably with the idea of enticing BYU to join AAC in the future I would guess). One-half or one-third a BYU loaf is better than no BYU loaf at all. BYU would be better off adding more AAC football games rather than playing some of the current schools on their schedule. As an aside, maybe schedule some AAC/BYU basketball games to get BYU thinking more about AAC membership.

BYU VS AAC FOOTBALL GAMES:
2021: USF @BYU
2022: BYU @USF, ECU TBA
2023: USF @BYU, BYU @UCF
2024: UCF @BYU, BYU @ECU

OTHER BYU FOOTBALL GAMES:
2021: Idaho State, @Georgia Southern
2022: BYU @Liberty, Dixie State @BYU
2023: Southern Utah @BYU
2024: Georgia Southern @BYU, Dixie State

Another form of "expansion" is playing 9 conference football games. The Big 12 plays 9 conference games and then one tough nonconference game. Baylor caught holy hell for their patsy nonconference schedule but has improved its nonconference schedule because of criticism within the B12 leadership. I prefer for AAC to stay at 8 conference football games. For B12, playing 9 conference games was meant to add more games to the B12 TV inventory to boost their TV contract....but isn't that what drives a lot of conference expansion?

The Big12 had to play 9 conference games as per the rules, they had to play a complete round-robin.

As I recall, the Big 12 agreed to play 9 conference football games when the negotiated their TV contract with just 10 members so as to have a larger inventory for TV. The requirement to play a round robin (9 conference games for Big 12) came later. This taken from Wikipedia:

"In December 2014 after completing the first season with the College Football Playoff, Baylor and TCU both finished the season with 8-1 conference record and were declared co-champions by the conference despite Baylor's heat-to-head win over TCU. When the selection committee met to set the teams for the first playoff, both Baylor and TCU were overlooked in favor of teams that competed in and won their conference's championship game, leaving the Big 12 out of the playoffs. This led to criticism of how the Big 12 determined its champion."

In April 2015, legislation was developed by the ACC and Big 12 to deregulate conference championship games. It was announced by NCAA officials as being expected to pass in time for the 2016 season. The legislation passed on January 14, 2016 allowing a conference with fewer than 12 teams to stage a championship game between the top two teams, so long as they pay a round-robin schedule. In late 2016, the Big 12 decided to bring back the championship game in 2017 after a seven year long gap of having no conference championship game."

Good to know. I didn't recall which came first so thanks for the information.