So where is Temple going to go? They are not going anywhere.

They've been in the MAC. They know what that looks like. They've seen what I-A independence looks like. They know what the A-10 looks like.

There are reasons they left those options.

Regardless of how the AAC lineup might change, it's the best option available at this time or for the foreseeable future, and anything better that might occur in the future is best accessed from where they are now.

(09-22-2021 08:52 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 05:37 PM)Reverend Wrote:  Colorado State isn't moving. I don't know about Air Force but in three years, the MWC is gonna double their payout and if Boise State is still in the MWC, they have agreed to make the payout per team more germaine.
Right now the MWC teams (Not Boise) is making between $4.1 and $4.3 million a year from FOX, CBS, and third tier games. Boise state gets an extra $1.8 after the $4 million and have no third tier rights to sale in football.
The MWC is looking at anywhere between $7 to $9 million for the next contract. FOX has been really happy with the MWC so far so the MWC thinks they can improve those numbers.
There is no reason for CSU to leave. Air Force and Hawaii are different though. I can see Air Force leave but I don't know if they will. Hawaii should honestly be independent but I am glad they are in the conference.

I really enjoy confidently saying with absolutely zero sources named that the MWC is for certain going to double their TV revenue on their next deal with no membership changes, a deal which is only 1 year old and doesn't expire till 2026. I'll go ahead and confidently say something, not a damn person at Fox or CBS has ever said that to anyone in the MWC. Source, just trust me on that.

We shall see...

(09-22-2021 09:13 AM)DuelingDragon Wrote:  So where is Temple going to go? They are not going anywhere.

They've been in the MAC. They know what that looks like. They've seen what I-A independence looks like. They know what the A-10 looks like.

There are reasons they left those options.

Regardless of how the AAC lineup might change, it's the best option available at this time or for the foreseeable future, and anything better that might occur in the future is best accessed from where they are now.

I think Temple will ride it out in the AAC until the money no longer justifies hosting football. The is very little interest in Temple football. In a few years, they'll give it up and reapply to the A10. I have no doubt that this is what will happen.

(09-21-2021 05:37 PM)Reverend Wrote:  Colorado State isn't moving. I don't know about Air Force but in three years, the MWC is gonna double their payout and if Boise State is still in the MWC, they have agreed to make the payout per team more germaine.
Right now the MWC teams (Not Boise) is making between $4.1 and $4.3 million a year from FOX, CBS, and third tier games. Boise state gets an extra $1.8 after the $4 million and have no third tier rights to sale in football.
The MWC is looking at anywhere between $7 to $9 million for the next contract. FOX has been really happy with the MWC so far so the MWC thinks they can improve those numbers.
There is no reason for CSU to leave. Air Force and Hawaii are different though. I can see Air Force leave but I don't know if they will. Hawaii should honestly be independent but I am glad they are in the conference.

I could see the numbers go up depending on what was renegotiated.

1) BYU going to a more eastern Big12 helps the MWC tremendously. BYU was competition in the 7:45 time slot. They are less likely to be in that spot playing eastern time zone schools.

2) The Boise deal forced the MWC to negotiate against themselves. If the renegotiation changes Boise’s ability to hold the conference hostage that makes a big difference.

Those two things makes the MWC one of two options in the 7:45 time slot. That alone would drive up the value of the content.

(09-22-2021 09:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  On that point, I agree - if the $10 million exit fee continues to apply, then Temple wouldn't be going anywhere unless it's the Big East or a P5 league. I think it's more of a matter if the AAC loses more members and the TV value goes downward whether that exit fee amount eventually gets adjusted by the member schools accordingly.

Pretty sure that's never ever happening. The $10M number was voted on by (football only, I'm not sure the C-7 cared much) Rutgers, Louisville, UConn, South Florida, and Cincinnati. The big TV contract didn't materialize, and 4 of those 5 schools are gone (poor USF), BCS-AQ status is gone. If they haven't reduced the exit fee yet, I doubt they ever do.

Caveat: if the AAC gets beaten down enough, someone might leave, and successfully challenge the exit fee as a unenforceable "penalty" rather than liquidated damages. But I don't think we're close to that point. The AAC would have to be beaten down far enough that you could prove in court that leaving would do less than $10M in damages.

(09-22-2021 08:52 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 05:37 PM)Reverend Wrote:  Colorado State isn't moving. I don't know about Air Force but in three years, the MWC is gonna double their payout and if Boise State is still in the MWC, they have agreed to make the payout per team more germaine.
Right now the MWC teams (Not Boise) is making between $4.1 and $4.3 million a year from FOX, CBS, and third tier games. Boise state gets an extra $1.8 after the $4 million and have no third tier rights to sale in football.
The MWC is looking at anywhere between $7 to $9 million for the next contract. FOX has been really happy with the MWC so far so the MWC thinks they can improve those numbers.
There is no reason for CSU to leave. Air Force and Hawaii are different though. I can see Air Force leave but I don't know if they will. Hawaii should honestly be independent but I am glad they are in the conference.

I really enjoy confidently saying with absolutely zero sources named that the MWC is for certain going to double their TV revenue on their next deal with no membership changes, a deal which is only 1 year old and doesn't expire till 2026. I'll go ahead and confidently say something, not a damn person at Fox or CBS has ever said that to anyone in the MWC. Source, just trust me on that.

That poster was also quite confident Boise St was Big 12-bound, that BYU would not join the Big 12 without Boise, and the announcement would leak soon.

(09-22-2021 11:27 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 08:52 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 05:37 PM)Reverend Wrote:  Colorado State isn't moving. I don't know about Air Force but in three years, the MWC is gonna double their payout and if Boise State is still in the MWC, they have agreed to make the payout per team more germaine.
Right now the MWC teams (Not Boise) is making between $4.1 and $4.3 million a year from FOX, CBS, and third tier games. Boise state gets an extra $1.8 after the $4 million and have no third tier rights to sale in football.
The MWC is looking at anywhere between $7 to $9 million for the next contract. FOX has been really happy with the MWC so far so the MWC thinks they can improve those numbers.
There is no reason for CSU to leave. Air Force and Hawaii are different though. I can see Air Force leave but I don't know if they will. Hawaii should honestly be independent but I am glad they are in the conference.

I really enjoy confidently saying with absolutely zero sources named that the MWC is for certain going to double their TV revenue on their next deal with no membership changes, a deal which is only 1 year old and doesn't expire till 2026. I'll go ahead and confidently say something, not a damn person at Fox or CBS has ever said that to anyone in the MWC. Source, just trust me on that.

That poster was also quite confident Boise St was Big 12-bound, that BYU would not join the Big 12 without Boise, and the announcement would leak soon.

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Boise is interested in the AAC? I don't think you can!!!

(09-16-2021 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...alignment/

"The American Athletic Conference is settling on a handful of expansion candidates that will likely kick off the next round of realignment at the Group of Five level, multiple sources told CBS Sports. The timing of that next round could be impacted if Texas and Oklahoma attempt to make an early entry into the SEC.

In reaction to the Big 12's recent raid of Cincinnati, Houston and UCF, the AAC has focused on recruiting a group of schools that includes Air Force, Boise State, Colorado State, San Diego State and UAB, sources tell CBS Sports. UAB, a member of Conference USA, is the only non-Mountain West team on that short list.

That suggests AAC commissioner Mike Aresco could be looking mostly West in search of equal television value for the three prize pieces he lost to the Big 12.

Boise State and UAB have been discussed most prominently among the five expansion candidates. Inclusion of any or all of the four aforementioned Mountain West candidates could destabilize that league to the point the that the AAC would remain the clear top conference in the Group of Five.

It is believed the AAC will expand by at least four teams to get to 12 members...."

The end of this article is hilarious. What the hell is Dennis Dodd doing? Why is he creating a geographically-based Gang of Five subdivision? That doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how this whole system works. The reason why college football is so screwed up is because there has never been any coordination. Suddenly, we’re going to coordinate 50 some schools? LOL! That is just bonkers! This guy is a very odd bird.

(09-22-2021 10:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  On that point, I agree - if the $10 million exit fee continues to apply, then Temple wouldn't be going anywhere unless it's the Big East or a P5 league. I think it's more of a matter if the AAC loses more members and the TV value goes downward whether that exit fee amount eventually gets adjusted by the member schools accordingly.

Pretty sure that's never ever happening. The $10M number was voted on by (football only, I'm not sure the C-7 cared much) Rutgers, Louisville, UConn, South Florida, and Cincinnati. The big TV contract didn't materialize, and 4 of those 5 schools are gone (poor USF), BCS-AQ status is gone. If they haven't reduced the exit fee yet, I doubt they ever do.

Caveat: if the AAC gets beaten down enough, someone might leave, and successfully challenge the exit fee as a unenforceable "penalty" rather than liquidated damages. But I don't think we're close to that point. The AAC would have to be beaten down far enough that you could prove in court that leaving would do less than $10M in damages.

Right, because you accept the terms of the conference when you enter, saying you’re okay with the exit fee structure, but then try to escape and fight that number. And from a stability standpoint, I don’t know if leading the charge on lowering it makes you more of a target for flight risk association. It’s handled as it’s all fine, until you get the call to move out/elsewhere, and then the number isn’t suitable, and you put up a fight to settle.

I think Temple will be fine with being in a conference that retains a “most favored” non-P5 football/basketball status, even if the footprint stretches further. I’d love to have them back in the A10, but there’s no reason or logic to it. MAC got them a home for football and a place to get their operations righted, but it didn’t pay. And as big an A10 fan I am, A10 isn’t pulling money through tv and tournament credits like it used to. I’d love to have them back and bring Wichita State with them.

(09-23-2021 06:01 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 10:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-22-2021 09:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  On that point, I agree - if the $10 million exit fee continues to apply, then Temple wouldn't be going anywhere unless it's the Big East or a P5 league. I think it's more of a matter if the AAC loses more members and the TV value goes downward whether that exit fee amount eventually gets adjusted by the member schools accordingly.

Pretty sure that's never ever happening. The $10M number was voted on by (football only, I'm not sure the C-7 cared much) Rutgers, Louisville, UConn, South Florida, and Cincinnati. The big TV contract didn't materialize, and 4 of those 5 schools are gone (poor USF), BCS-AQ status is gone. If they haven't reduced the exit fee yet, I doubt they ever do.

Caveat: if the AAC gets beaten down enough, someone might leave, and successfully challenge the exit fee as a unenforceable "penalty" rather than liquidated damages. But I don't think we're close to that point. The AAC would have to be beaten down far enough that you could prove in court that leaving would do less than $10M in damages.

Right, because you accept the terms of the conference when you enter, saying you’re okay with the exit fee structure, but then try to escape and fight that number. And from a stability standpoint, I don’t know if leading the charge on lowering it makes you more of a target for flight risk association. It’s handled as it’s all fine, until you get the call to move out/elsewhere, and then the number isn’t suitable, and you put up a fight to settle.

I think Temple will be fine with being in a conference that retains a “most favored” non-P5 football/basketball status, even if the footprint stretches further. I’d love to have them back in the A10, but there’s no reason or logic to it. MAC got them a home for football and a place to get their operations righted, but it didn’t pay. And as big an A10 fan I am, A10 isn’t pulling money through tv and tournament credits like it used to. I’d love to have them back and bring Wichita State with them.

Yeah, if the AAC exit fee were going to be lowered, it would have been in the first year or two of the conference when they wrote new bylaws that weren't designed for a "I-A / Non I-A" hybrid. At that point you're not "lowering the exit fee", you're determining new bylaws and exit fees for a new conference. Maybe $5M, maybe a formula based on conference distributions, maybe a sliding scale based on how much notice or whatever. Maybe 10% of your conference distributions in your new conference for 10 years.

But they kept the $10M number and the 27 months.

I wonder if they even wrote new bylaws, or just kept the klunky old ones.

I've always thought the notion of exit fees preventing a school from leaving a conference to be a fruitless one. If a school believes, long-term, it would be in better position (in regards to athletic competition, geography, peer associations, etc.) in another conference, any type of exit fee isn't going to stop them from leaving.

Temple may not leave the American - but if it stays, it's not going to be because the exit fee is keeping them there. It will stay because they will believe it will be the best opportunity for its athletic programs moving forward. IMO, as an outsider, I still view Temple as a basketball-first athletic department and institution. That very well could have changed in the past decade thanks to their newfound association in the American. Time will tell, but only if/when the American loses Memphis (and/or Wichita State) AND the AAC is unable (or unwilling) to seek to add non-football/basketball-first programs (ideally in the east).

(09-23-2021 09:13 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I've always thought the notion of exit fees preventing a school from leaving a conference to be a fruitless one. If a school believes, long-term, it would be in better position (in regards to athletic competition, geography, peer associations, etc.) in another conference, any type of exit fee isn't going to stop them from leaving.

Temple may not leave the American - but if it stays, it's not going to be because the exit fee is keeping them there. It will stay because they will believe it will be the best opportunity for its athletic programs moving forward. IMO, as an outsider, I still view Temple as a basketball-first athletic department and institution. That very well could have changed in the past decade thanks to their newfound association in the American. Time will tell, but only if/when the American loses Memphis (and/or Wichita State) AND the AAC is unable (or unwilling) to seek to add non-football/basketball-first programs (ideally in the east).

If that were the case, then TX/OU would be gone today. If the exit fee was 2-3x they probably wouldn't be leaving at all.

(09-21-2021 05:37 PM)Reverend Wrote:  Colorado State isn't moving. I don't know about Air Force but in three years, the MWC is gonna double their payout and if Boise State is still in the MWC, they have agreed to make the payout per team more germaine.
Right now the MWC teams (Not Boise) is making between $4.1 and $4.3 million a year from FOX, CBS, and third tier games. Boise state gets an extra $1.8 after the $4 million and have no third tier rights to sale in football.
The MWC is looking at anywhere between $7 to $9 million for the next contract. FOX has been really happy with the MWC so far so the MWC thinks they can improve those numbers.
There is no reason for CSU to leave. Air Force and Hawaii are different though. I can see Air Force leave but I don't know if they will. Hawaii should honestly be independent but I am glad they are in the conference.

Since the word on the street is that CSU seems likely to move, it's hard to believe that there's no reason for CSU to consider leaving.

What I mean is that they may have reasons for leaving and reasons for staying, and they may be weighing the two.

I don't know if they'd be better off in the AAC or in the MWC, but there was a report suggesting that the main reason AF and CSU were considering the move was because they believe Boise and/or SDSU may heading in the Big 12 within a few years, and based on that, they rather take their chances in the AAC then wind up in a conference without BSU or SDSU.

The AFA seems to have its own reason for moving, which would be that they could count their Navy game as a conference game, and that would free up another OOC game for them.

Another benefit for AFA might be that they could boost recruiting air force cadets (not just players, but regular cadets) for the academy by playing their games in front of viewers in the eastern time zones. This is also, apparently, one of the main reasons why Navy chose to play in the AAC.

According to Navy fans who post on the AAC board, navy is apparently very happy in the AAC, and they may have encouraged AFA to join.

Temple is an interesting animal in the AAC, much like Navy, Memphis and Wichita. Those four don't "fit" in the league as well now that UC, UH and UCF are leaving (Temple even less so with the past loss of UConn).

The reality is that each of the four might stay in the league long term 1. because it might not have a better option (see UM and WSU) or 2. because the AAC will be as good as any other option (see Temple and Navy).

The AAC still has nine universities, each of which brings at least one element (football, basketball, baseball, academics, vibrant and large-city locations) of "national note" to the table. (To be clear, the only football program of national significance left is that of Navy — and that might be the only one even including UC, UH and UCF.)

East Carolina (baseball and a med school)

Temple (basketball and Philly)

Navy (military academy with strong football history)

USF (Vastly underrated, and strong, academics with med school; Tampa)

Memphis (hoops and gritty/cool city locale)

SMU (All-time top 80 or so in hoops, academics and Dallas)

Tulsa (All-time top 80 or so hoops and academics)

Tulane (baseball, academics and NOLA)

Wichita (baseball and All-time top 80 or so in basketball)

That is a strong nine-member core around which to build — and could be sufficient in terms of motivating Temple, Navy and Wichita (each of which would potentially have other league options) to stay.

As a Memphis fan, I am very concerned about the loss of Cincy and Houston in terms of basketball. A UAB addition would help ease the blow some but would not fully. My hope is that SMU, Wichita, UAB, Tulsa, Temple and Memphis will collectively carry the AAC basketball banner.

(09-23-2021 09:13 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I've always thought the notion of exit fees preventing a school from leaving a conference to be a fruitless one. If a school believes, long-term, it would be in better position (in regards to athletic competition, geography, peer associations, etc.) in another conference, any type of exit fee isn't going to stop them from leaving.

Agreed. At most, an exit fee should be no more than the reasonable cost of replacing a team that leaves -- expenses like money paid to a consultant to vet candidates, and the overhead expenses of the conference office in coordinating the replacement process. That's it.

Exit fees are dumb if they are intended to punish a school for leaving or handcuff them to a conference they don't want to be in.

(09-23-2021 11:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-23-2021 09:13 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I've always thought the notion of exit fees preventing a school from leaving a conference to be a fruitless one. If a school believes, long-term, it would be in better position (in regards to athletic competition, geography, peer associations, etc.) in another conference, any type of exit fee isn't going to stop them from leaving.

Agreed. At most, an exit fee should be no more than the reasonable cost of replacing a team that leaves -- expenses like money paid to a consultant to vet candidates, and the overhead expenses of the conference office in coordinating the replacement process. That's it.

Exit fees are dumb if they are intended to punish a school for leaving or handcuff them to a conference they don't want to be in.

Sure, in a world where there was no financial harm being done to the remaining members I'd agree with you. That world doesn't exist. You sign a contract when you join a conference, if you don't like the terms of the separation agreement don't join. Really is that simple. The AAC's exit fees haven't stopped anyone at all from leaving. They honestly aren't even designed to. They help mitigate the damages to the rest of the remaining members. 10 million is not prohibitive at all for any school getting a "power conference" invite, everyone has paid it and more to get out.

(09-23-2021 11:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-23-2021 09:13 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I've always thought the notion of exit fees preventing a school from leaving a conference to be a fruitless one. If a school believes, long-term, it would be in better position (in regards to athletic competition, geography, peer associations, etc.) in another conference, any type of exit fee isn't going to stop them from leaving.

Agreed. At most, an exit fee should be no more than the reasonable cost of replacing a team that leaves -- expenses like money paid to a consultant to vet candidates, and the overhead expenses of the conference office in coordinating the replacement process. That's it.

Exit fees are dumb if they are intended to punish a school for leaving or handcuff them to a conference they don't want to be in.

Exit fees are also profit incentives for those left behind so the conferences keep them as high as they possibly can. The OBE departures, the future AAC departures, and the B-12 past and future departures are all examples of profiteering for the leftovers.

(09-23-2021 12:38 PM)panite Wrote:  

(09-23-2021 11:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-23-2021 09:13 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I've always thought the notion of exit fees preventing a school from leaving a conference to be a fruitless one. If a school believes, long-term, it would be in better position (in regards to athletic competition, geography, peer associations, etc.) in another conference, any type of exit fee isn't going to stop them from leaving.

Agreed. At most, an exit fee should be no more than the reasonable cost of replacing a team that leaves -- expenses like money paid to a consultant to vet candidates, and the overhead expenses of the conference office in coordinating the replacement process. That's it.

Exit fees are dumb if they are intended to punish a school for leaving or handcuff them to a conference they don't want to be in.

Exit fees are also profit incentives for those left behind so the conferences keep them as high as they possibly can. The OBE departures, the future AAC departures, and the B-12 past and future departures are all examples of profiteering for the leftovers.

I'm not sure it counts as profiteering. I'm pretty sure every school left behind would happily trade the exit fee money for undoing the raid that devalued their conference.

(09-23-2021 12:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-23-2021 11:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-23-2021 09:13 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I've always thought the notion of exit fees preventing a school from leaving a conference to be a fruitless one. If a school believes, long-term, it would be in better position (in regards to athletic competition, geography, peer associations, etc.) in another conference, any type of exit fee isn't going to stop them from leaving.

Agreed. At most, an exit fee should be no more than the reasonable cost of replacing a team that leaves -- expenses like money paid to a consultant to vet candidates, and the overhead expenses of the conference office in coordinating the replacement process. That's it.

Exit fees are dumb if they are intended to punish a school for leaving or handcuff them to a conference they don't want to be in.

Sure, in a world where there was no financial harm being done to the remaining members I'd agree with you. That world doesn't exist. You sign a contract when you join a conference, if you don't like the terms of the separation agreement don't join. Really is that simple. The AAC's exit fees haven't stopped anyone at all from leaving. They honestly aren't even designed to. They help mitigate the damages to the rest of the remaining members. 10 million is not prohibitive at all for any school getting a "power conference" invite, everyone has paid it and more to get out.

What you're calling financial harm or damages is just the departure of members whose presence generates greater-than-average revenue, in the same way that a realtor's office would be damaged if two out of 10 agents generate two-thirds of the office's revenue and then leave to start their own office. You're saying that exit fees exist only to punish and/or handcuff members that are more valuable than other members.

We agree on that; we just disagree on whether or not that's a good thing.

(09-23-2021 11:18 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Temple is an interesting animal in the AAC, much like Navy, Memphis and Wichita. Those four don't "fit" in the league as well now that UC, UH and UCF are leaving (Temple even less so with the past loss of UConn).

The reality is that each of the four might stay in the league long term 1. because it might not have a better option (see UM and WSU) or 2. because the AAC will be as good as any other option (see Temple and Navy).

The AAC still has nine universities, each of which brings at least one element (football, basketball, baseball, academics, vibrant and large-city locations) of "national note" to the table. (To be clear, the only football program of national significance left is that of Navy — and that might be the only one even including UC, UH and UCF.)

East Carolina (baseball and a med school)
Temple (basketball and Philly)
Navy (military academy with strong football history)
USF (Vastly underrated, and strong, academics with med school; Tampa)
Memphis (hoops and gritty/cool city locale)
SMU (All-time top 80 or so in hoops, academics and Dallas)
Tulsa (All-time top 80 or so hoops and academics)
Tulane (baseball, academics and NOLA)
Wichita (baseball and All-time top 80 or so in basketball)

That is a strong nine-member core around which to build — and could be sufficient in terms of motivating Temple, Navy and Wichita (each of which would potentially have other league options) to stay.

Solid point. Although a couple of these teams (Memphis and USF or SMU) are likely picks in a second round of Big 12 expansion, there is a solid core of 6 AAC schools that would have no reason to leave unless invited to join a P5 conference.

The key for them is to reload with the best possible replacements. If they fail to add enough quality FB and BB programs, they could easily lose their stature as a Major 7 conference, and would begin to be referred to as a "mid-major" conference and just a run-of-the-mill G5.

.

When evaluating three of the schools that the AAC has been showing interest in, according to Dodd, none of the three that may be most interested has a FB program that can compare with Houston's, not to speak of Cincinnati's or UCF's.

Air Force has had the most FB success of the three, but they've only won 8+ games in four seasons since 2011 (2014, '15, '16, & '19). The other seasons, they only won an average of 5 games/yr. They played in the most (6) bowl games and won half of them.

CSU has had the second most success since 2011, playing in 5 bowl games. They won 8 and 10 games in 2013 and 2014, and they went 7-6 in 2015, '16, & '17. However, they only averaged 3.5 wins in 2018 and '19.

CSU has also had a much stronger football legacy than UAB has had, including MWC conference championship teams, 10 nationally-ranked teams, and three teams that finished in the final AP top 25.

UAB trails AF and CSU, with only 3 bowl games since 2011 (record: 1-2). They've only had four teams with winning records during that period. Their only consolation is they've won more games in the past 4 seasons than AF and CSU have. No UAB FB team has ever been ranked in the top 25 for even a single week.

It seems like a h*ll of a gamble to stake the future of a conference on a school that has lost far more games than it has won in 23 FBS seasons, simply because they averaged 8.5 wins/yr over the past four seasons - - in the CUSA.

Their only period of football success was achieved by their current HC. Every other UAB FB HC finished their careers at UAB with a losing record. There's no reason to think that

.

If you've noticed that their football track records are disappointing, it gets worse:

Neither Air Force, nor CSU, nor UAB has a NCAA tournament quality BB program.

UAB has only played in one NCAA tournament in the past decade, seven years ago. They've only won more than 20 games/year twice since 2011. One of those teams was last year's UAB team, but they weren't ranked highly enough to play in the NIT.

CSU has fared a little better than UAB, but that's not saying much. Their teams played in the 2012 and 2013 NCAA tourneys, but that's ancient history now. CSU's last three tournament appearances were in the NIT (in 2015, 2017, and 2021). In 8 seasons as a Head Coach, CSU's current HC, entering his 4th season has never taken a team to the NCAA tournament. Hopefully, he'll get there, but he hasn't yet.

All that can be said about Air Force's basketball program is that it won't make it any easier for the American to remain one of the Major 7 basketball conferences.

.

If these three schools are going to be the 3 replacements for UC, UCF, Houston, and UConn, then the AAC may be on the verge of committing a major blunder and has missed a golden opportunity.

.

The truth is that, of the three, Air Force is the only school of the three that can give the AAC anything close what it will be losing.

On its own merits, Air Force is the only one that is worth adding.

The idea of adding CSU was only part of a package deal that Mike Aresco thought could persuade Boise & SDSU to join the conference.

If his gambit fails, the AAC could be stuck with CSU instead of a consistently good FB program such as Appalachian State or Marshall.

For example, compare UAB, Marshall, and Louisiana Tech's FB records over the past decade:

Year.Marshall UAB..Louisiana Tech
2020...7-3.....6-3.......5-5
2019...8-5.....9-5.......10-3
2018...9-4.....11-3......8-5
2017...8-5.....8-5.......7-6
2016...3-9.....DNP......9-5
2015...10-3....DNP......9-4
2014...13-1....6-6.......9-5
2013...10-4....2-10.....4-8
2012...5-7.....3-9.......9-3
2011...7-6.....3-9.......8-5

AvgWs: 8.0....6.0.......7.8 wins per year

Not only that, but in addition, Marshall's and Louisiana Tech's basketball teams have been more successful than UABs has been in the past few years.

Marshall averaged 21.25 BB wins/yr from 2016-2020, won the 2019 CIT tournament championship, and played in the 2018 NCAA tournament, while UAB averaged only 19.0 wins and didn't play in either the NCAA or NIT.

Louisiana Tech averaged 21.5 BB wins/yr from 2016-2020 and advanced to the semifinals of the 2021 National Invitational Tournament. They also won the NIT third place game, where they defeating Colorado State.

.

These comparisons make the point clear: UAB is not one of the strongest FB and BB schools. Neither is CSU (which was only included to bring SDSU/Boise). Air Force is the only school that really belongs on the list.

What a colossal failure it would be to add those two schools when the conference could do so much better.