(09-20-2021 07:15 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 06:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 06:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 05:33 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  We shall see. To your point, the power conferences may not be done yet. If CSU and AFA jump it's going to look a lot less smart if and when the Big 12 scoops up Memphis. They will be dealing with all of the downsides of the AAC's stretched geography with little if any tangible benefit to show for it.

Again though you aren't offering any viable alternative the AAC should be trying to do. There is nothing that stops a raid of either the MWC or the AAC if the B12 decides to add more teams, and while losing Memphis wouldn't be good what if the 2 teams the B12 decides to add are Memphis and Boise? Which league is hurt more by that? Answer is the MWC, since they are the only team in either league that has their own carve out to get more revenue than the rest of their current conference members. Also because you guys have killed the WAC already there are almost no FBS schools in the mountain or pacific time zones, you either have to call up FCS teams, add NMSU, or stretch out the geography to be basically as whacky as the AAC's would be in this scenario. If they join the AAC and the AAC loses Memphis they can actually push to have another school that fits their geography better in either Texas or another of the front range schools and it doesn't necessarily get way worse for them.

The AAC’s viable alternative is to take UAB and Marshall and stop. That way the conference wouldn’t be diluting football and basketball with two bottom-feeders in each sport (Colorado State and Rice in football, and Air Force and Rice in basketball), would have fewer members divvying up its TV revenue, and would be reducing instead of increasing travel costs.

As for the longer term, per my previous post, there’s no reason to think that taking CSU and AFA will make it easier to peel away more MWC members if the Big 12 poaches both Memphis and Boise State.

I’ve played enough chess to know that scattering your pieces across the board is generally not the best strategy.

The AAC would not take CSU and AFA to make it easier to peel away more MWC members but, rather, to add prestige. Same with Rice, if that materializes. And that's how Aresco potentially gets Army down the road (though that will be tough, I admit; but Aresco has to try).

You might be correct on this. I would not say I will be proved right (I'm terrible at predicting anything, including what I might have for dinner tonight). But Aresco is attempting to injure his main competition (the MWC), just like the Big 12 did to the AAC taking UC, UH and UCF. That's how this chess game works. Plain and simple.

I suppose if we want stretch the chess analogy a little further (probably too far), we could say that Aresco is willing to risk some awkward positioning of his pieces in order to capture a couple of the opponents’ pieces. What’s not clear is how valuable the captured pieces really are, and whether the strategy will ultimately make him more vulnerable to countermoves.

I totally agree that it’s difficult to see how the game will play out. Also I have no clue what’s for dinner tonight either.

Well framed. I agree. I'm not sure Aresco can pull this off. Or that it, if he does, will be successful for the AAC, Air Force and/or CSU.

By the way, my father served in the U.S. Air Force in the 1950s and was stationed in New Mexico (he attended New Mexico Highlands University in Las Vegas, N.M., for two years). Pops always pulls for Air Force, New Mexico, New Mexico State and, for some odd reason, Wyoming. He likes the Western U.S. and hugely respects the MWC. Though a Memphis Tiger fan (and he bleeds UM blue), he is reasonable enough to not want the MWC to be injured at the expense of the AAC.

These are stressful and uncertain times for lots of college athletics programs and fans. My stomach is still upset at the thought that there is a chance Memphis (parents attended) and Cincinnati (brother attended) might never again share a league.

You do a strong job with your posts, H-Mongoose.

(09-20-2021 08:14 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:24 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:05 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I think the MW schools that move are making a big mistake. Then again, Ive never been a school president or AD. I dont know what they see besides more money. Maybe much more? Perhaps just done with MW and Boise. BYU and Utah are gone. Their other front range mates Wyoming and UNM are bottom dwellers in either football or basketball.

If you're Air Force and Colorado St. how is being in a conference with mostly Pacific Coast schools better than being in a conference with OK/TX/KS schools. Colorado did pretty good in the old Big 12 territory so why couldn't Air Force and Colorado St?

Sure it will suck not playing Wyoming and you'll miss New Mexico, but Utah and BYU are long gone....everyone else leans towards the Pacific coast. Why not fly east to border states instead of west?

Just look at a map. Sending your volleyball, soccer and softball teams to San Jose, Fresno and San Diego is easier than sending them to Philadelphia, Greenville and Tampa. It's roughly half the distance.

So...dumb question. Are you driving to any opponents in any sport outside your division (or even in it) in the MWC? I get that San Jose is closer. But is it that much more expensive to fly to Philly and play a more recognizable opponent?

I get this all come down to:

A) How much are these athletic departments paying for travel?
B) How much more would it be, particularly for a MWC team in Colorado, to fly to AAC cities (mostly Texahoma within their division) vs. California?

If the difference is in the millions, then of course a move up isn't worth it.

I’ll skip the hours of research it would take to answer that question and just say that, according to posts I’ve seen on the MWC board, when Boise State was taking a close look at joining the AAC it concluded the additional travel cost would be in the neighborhood of $1 million annually. Of course I have no idea what assumptions were made when that estimate was done, and obviously the cost for Front Range schools would be lower because they’re closer.

Having said that, the cost of more travel isn’t measured solely in dollars. The increased time out of the classroom is a concern for administrators, and the increased time on airplanes, on buses and in waiting rooms is a concern for coaches. It adversely affects athletes’ physical and mental preparedness to compete. As a Hawaii fan since the 1970s I’ve seen how it wears teams down over the course of a season. Every school plays worse on the road than at home but the road disadvantage increases disproportionately with the amount of time and effort spent getting to the destination.

(09-20-2021 07:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 07:22 PM)BKTopper Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 07:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The issue is you can't go with schools with bad athletics. AAC was hurt when they added Tulsa and Tulane. Southern Mississippi at the time had a better football product. Marshall, ODU, North Texas and UAB do not have history of winning. Appalachian State, James Madison, North Dakota State and South Dakota State do have a much better resumes right now. Air Force and Colorado State are on the down side of football. They don't bring anything to AAC. Nobody really are good matches for AAC. If you don't get any of the 4 I pick? AAC tv contract will go down and schools will look for a way to leave. Tulane should have stayed in SEC, but they made their bed.

Those programs make a lot of sense if it helps you get all 3 service academies and weaken your biggest competition.

Army, Navy and Air Force are not strong in football, and they have been passed by other schools. They don't bring anything today.

They bring eyeballs in a way that none of your teams do. Notre Dame plays at Navy all the time. They played at AFA 10-12 years ago in front of a packed house on a beautiful late summer/early fall day. I can’t imagine we will ever see them play at one of the Dakotas, but I’ve learned to not underestimate “Savvy” Jack Swarbrick’s incompetence.

(09-20-2021 07:59 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 02:56 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  Is the AAC making the same mistakes that C-USA made? If the AAC is pursuing Air Force and Colorado State, it will be as far flung as any league ever. Pretty much nothing connects Air Force to ECU, Temple to to Colorado State the same way nothing connects ODU to UTEP or Charlotte to UTSA.

ODU has been a part of that strategy and I'm sure I can speak for virtually all ODU fans and most fans of C-USA that it hasn't worked. With the major teams leaving the AAC, only a few of the remaining schools are fractionally better than C-USA teams. Memphis is the best remaining school. SMU and Tulane have some history but its been a long time. ECU, Temple and Navy are better off in a regional conference. No one cares about Tulsa or USF. Wichita state is good basketball program but that's it. Air Force and CSU wont help much.

Admittedly the AAC has had FAR better leadership than C-USA could ever dream of and could probably do better with those schools, but chasing "names" and "markets" that are extremely far apart I don't think will end well.

If ODU ends up in a regional conference with Marshall, JMU, App State, Charlotte, Coastal Carolina, Ga Southern and Ga State (possibly WKU or Liberty as well). That is a solid regional core that could be more attractive to ECU, Navy and Temple in a few years.

In short, Regional is better than Markets. AAC teams in the east should merge with C-USA East teams + JMU, App St and Coastal now than wait for the next version AAC to crumble.

I’ve been thinking about this over the past few days and I think you might be right.

I think a merger between the AAC’s left behinds and the Mountain West’s best teens could work. However, it’s more of a gamble than people are willing to acknowledge. Also, I think it needs to be a larger merger than two or three teams. I think it needs to be more comprehensive than that.

And to your regional conference point, the Mid-American Conference is probably the most stable of all the G5 leagues and that’s primarily because they have remained true to their core identity.

They are the "most stable" because no one above them in the food chain wants to add their schools, not because of some "core identity". Is "core identity" code for accepting your place as a non-power team?

(09-20-2021 07:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 07:22 PM)BKTopper Wrote:  Those programs make a lot of sense if it helps you get all 3 service academies and weaken your biggest competition.

As far as weakening the competition... adding AFA and CSU is like when a college football team hires a "name" coach. It's "winning the press conference".

In this case, the winning-the-press-conference perception Aresco wants to create is: "Even though we didn't get Boise State and San Diego State, we still stole two from them and they couldn't steal from us."

And like hiring a name coach, maybe it will turn out great or maybe it will be not so great. Sometimes when a team hires a former championship coach, it's Alabama hiring Nick Saban; sometimes it's Kansas hiring Les Miles. Only time will tell.

The difference being Boise State and SDSU simply aren’t viable as all-sports members and I don’t think AAC can pull together enough dollars to make it worthwhile to Boise as long as MWC has an eat what you kill TV revenue sharing system. If you are Boise, losing the strongest opponent to the eat what you kill system is a plus.

The MWC component makes greater sense if you consider that MWC is the best college football property ESPN doesn’t have a stake in.

I don’t think ESPN sheds any tears if Big XII picks up Boise State and some decent name brands from MWC migrate to AAC. Likewise ESPN is third tier on CUSA, think they are upset if some of the better brands (determined by TV ratings and online viewers) migrate to AAC and Sun Belt, two leagues where they own the rights to every home contest in every sport.

(09-20-2021 09:41 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 07:59 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 02:56 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  Is the AAC making the same mistakes that C-USA made? If the AAC is pursuing Air Force and Colorado State, it will be as far flung as any league ever. Pretty much nothing connects Air Force to ECU, Temple to to Colorado State the same way nothing connects ODU to UTEP or Charlotte to UTSA.

ODU has been a part of that strategy and I'm sure I can speak for virtually all ODU fans and most fans of C-USA that it hasn't worked. With the major teams leaving the AAC, only a few of the remaining schools are fractionally better than C-USA teams. Memphis is the best remaining school. SMU and Tulane have some history but its been a long time. ECU, Temple and Navy are better off in a regional conference. No one cares about Tulsa or USF. Wichita state is good basketball program but that's it. Air Force and CSU wont help much.

Admittedly the AAC has had FAR better leadership than C-USA could ever dream of and could probably do better with those schools, but chasing "names" and "markets" that are extremely far apart I don't think will end well.

If ODU ends up in a regional conference with Marshall, JMU, App State, Charlotte, Coastal Carolina, Ga Southern and Ga State (possibly WKU or Liberty as well). That is a solid regional core that could be more attractive to ECU, Navy and Temple in a few years.

In short, Regional is better than Markets. AAC teams in the east should merge with C-USA East teams + JMU, App St and Coastal now than wait for the next version AAC to crumble.

I’ve been thinking about this over the past few days and I think you might be right.

I think a merger between the AAC’s left behinds and the Mountain West’s best teens could work. However, it’s more of a gamble than people are willing to acknowledge. Also, I think it needs to be a larger merger than two or three teams. I think it needs to be more comprehensive than that.

And to your regional conference point, the Mid-American Conference is probably the most stable of all the G5 leagues and that’s primarily because they have remained true to their core identity.

They are the "most stable" because no one above them in the food chain wants to add their schools, not because of some "core identity". Is "core identity" code for accepting your place as a non-power team?

Contentment is a sort of power in a way. It allows them to do what they do and be who they are efficiently. There are other schools who dump tons more money into achieving less.

But I think the key MAC metric is the demographics of t he states they are in. They aren't growing. The schools aren't up and coming like some in the south and west. They have mostly flat or shrinking enrollments.

AAC and CUSA have a mix of teams, so feel more pressure from some of the universities that are growing and changing more than MAC schools, and it doesn't necessarily benefit their conferences as much as it might seem.

(09-20-2021 07:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 07:22 PM)BKTopper Wrote:  Those programs make a lot of sense if it helps you get all 3 service academies and weaken your biggest competition.

As far as weakening the competition... adding AFA and CSU is like when a college football team hires a "name" coach. It's "winning the press conference".

In this case, the winning-the-press-conference perception Aresco wants to create is: "Even though we didn't get Boise State and San Diego State, we still stole two from them and they couldn't steal from us."

And like hiring a name coach, maybe it will turn out great or maybe it will be not so great. Sometimes when a team hires a former championship coach, it's Alabama hiring Nick Saban; sometimes it's Kansas hiring Les Miles. Only time will tell.

Well fwiw I think Boise goes with them. Then you know SDSU is 2 feet and 10 toes out the door.

The MAC schools generally don't have the budgets for weekly trips halfway across the continent. The MAC is stable b/c it is what it is: a FBS conference that serves the Midwest.

Toledo might be able as a good brand in Ohio to pick up. AAC needs a school in Ohio to replace Cincinnati. They have been winning with above .500.

UTSA is a better football than Charlotte. Charlotte us the biggest bust ever.

(09-20-2021 09:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The MWC component makes greater sense if you consider that MWC is the best college football property ESPN doesn’t have a stake in.

I don’t think ESPN sheds any tears if Big XII picks up Boise State and some decent name brands from MWC migrate to AAC. Likewise ESPN is third tier on CUSA, think they are upset if some of the better brands (determined by TV ratings and online viewers) migrate to AAC and Sun Belt, two leagues where they own the rights to every home contest in every sport.

I think this angle has a lot of real validity to it. I could easily see ESPN saying we'll leave your TV deal untouched IF you only add inventory we dont already have first/second tier rights to. Every single team being discussed fits that description. Add in the fact that the school presidents probably prioritize academics more than fans---this same group of teams make sense again. If the AAC can get Air Force, Colorado St, UAB, and Army---they bring in new inventory ESPN had little to no access to and add a very academically respectable foursome to the AAC.

(09-20-2021 11:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Toledo might be able as a good brand in Ohio to pick up. AAC needs a school in Ohio to replace Cincinnati. They have been winning with above .500.

UTSA is a better football than Charlotte. Charlotte us the biggest bust ever.

I hate to have to defend Charlotte, but they literally started playing football less than a decade ago and moved from not having football at all to playing FBS football in 2 years. Proclaiming any long term statement about them is just making things up out of whole cloth.

I’ll defend UNCC in this instance:

At least they have their own (undersized but appropriate) stadium that isn’t 20 miles away and their basketball arena is legit.

Agree on Charlotte. The football program is making progress. Will Healy was a fine hire. Give it more time.

(09-20-2021 08:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 08:14 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:24 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:05 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I think the MW schools that move are making a big mistake. Then again, Ive never been a school president or AD. I dont know what they see besides more money. Maybe much more? Perhaps just done with MW and Boise. BYU and Utah are gone. Their other front range mates Wyoming and UNM are bottom dwellers in either football or basketball.

If you're Air Force and Colorado St. how is being in a conference with mostly Pacific Coast schools better than being in a conference with OK/TX/KS schools. Colorado did pretty good in the old Big 12 territory so why couldn't Air Force and Colorado St?

Sure it will suck not playing Wyoming and you'll miss New Mexico, but Utah and BYU are long gone....everyone else leans towards the Pacific coast. Why not fly east to border states instead of west?

Just look at a map. Sending your volleyball, soccer and softball teams to San Jose, Fresno and San Diego is easier than sending them to Philadelphia, Greenville and Tampa. It's roughly half the distance.

So...dumb question. Are you driving to any opponents in any sport outside your division (or even in it) in the MWC? I get that San Jose is closer. But is it that much more expensive to fly to Philly and play a more recognizable opponent?

I get this all come down to:

A) How much are these athletic departments paying for travel?
B) How much more would it be, particularly for a MWC team in Colorado, to fly to AAC cities (mostly Texahoma within their division) vs. California?

If the difference is in the millions, then of course a move up isn't worth it.

I’ll skip the hours of research it would take to answer that question and just say that, according to posts I’ve seen on the MWC board, when Boise State was taking a close look at joining the AAC it concluded the additional travel cost would be in the neighborhood of $1 million annually. Of course I have no idea what assumptions were made when that estimate was done, and obviously the cost for Front Range schools would be lower because they’re closer.

Having said that, the cost of more travel isn’t measured solely in dollars. The increased time out of the classroom is a concern for administrators, and the increased time on airplanes, on buses and in waiting rooms is a concern for coaches. It adversely affects athletes’ physical and mental preparedness to compete. As a Hawaii fan since the 1970s I’ve seen how it wears teams down over the course of a season. Every school plays worse on the road than at home but the road disadvantage increases disproportionately with the amount of time and effort spent getting to the destination.

I think this is something everyone forgets when talking about the cost of travel. It's draining to be on cross country flights and adjusting to time zones that are ahead of yours constantly.

The AAC situation is different than CUSA.

1. AAC was established #6 FB conference, taking over from the Big East. That has allowed a TV edge over the other G5 conferences. CUSA was never better than the 7th or 8th FB conference even in CUSA 1.0.

2. AAC had an access bowl where as CUSA 1.0 didn't. The AAC earned that access bowl 5 times which has helped in the TV money.

3. AAC has a superior TV deal to the level where it can poach MWC teams while CUSA 1.0 didn't.

4. CUSA 1.0 added USM because they were one of the few independents in the south that was serious about FB. CUSA grabbed Marshall from the MAC for its FB strength at that time. AAC has stayed largely true to markets aside from the AAC add.

The AAC wants to keep its position as the 6th overall conference and getting the second academy in is a way at that point to do that.

I do question if the AAC is going to be as deep in FB with CSU, AFA, UTSA and UAB. UAB has been winning lately but that is on a CUSA schedule. Is Memphis, USF and SMU at the top enough to stay ahead of Boise, Fresno and SDSU?

I: AAC/MWC/SBC
II: CUSA/MAC

Moving forward at least in FB the AAC is going to be about on the same tier with the MWC and SBC for that 6th playoff spot. CUSA/MAC are looking more like D1 basketball conferences that happen to play FBS.

Yes.

When football conferences really started to pick up in the 90s.

It was

P6 - SEC, B10, P10, B12, ACC, BE
Best Of the Rest - MWC/WAC, CUSA

Realignment started in the early 2000s with the ACC taking teams from the BE who took teams from the CUSA. Ever since the BE been weakening until its death following the failed PAC16 which triggered all sorts crazy stuff.

Then the structure is

P5 - SEC, B1G, P12, B12, ACC
Best Of Rest - AAC

With the weakening of the Big 12. The writing is on the wall. Soon the structure will be

P4 - SEC, B1G, P12, ACC
Best Of Rest - B12

(09-21-2021 10:26 AM)ccbfan Wrote:  Yes.

When football conferences really started to pick up in the 90s.

It was

P6 - SEC, B10, P10, B12, ACC, BE
Best Of the Rest - MWC/WAC, CUSA

Realignment started in the early 2000s with the ACC taking teams from the BE who took teams from the CUSA. Ever since the BE been weakening until its death following the failed PAC16 which triggered all sorts crazy stuff.

Then the structure is

P5 - SEC, B1G, P12, B12, ACC
Best Of Rest - AAC

The writing is on the wall. Soon the structure will be

P4 - SEC, B1G, P12, AAC
Best Of Rest - B12

I think you made a typo in that P4 there, unless the AAC can get something really dramatic to happen.

(09-21-2021 08:30 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Agree on Charlotte. The football program is making progress. Will Healy was a fine hire. Give it more time.

By any reasonable standard for a program that started football from scratch in 2013 they are doing good. That doesn't mean they are currently a good addition to the AAC, but they are attempting to do something at a speed that no one has tried and honestly to make a bowl game in their 5th season of FBS play isn't nothing. Healy seems to be doing a really good job from my very outside view of things.

(09-21-2021 09:37 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 08:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 08:14 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:24 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If you're Air Force and Colorado St. how is being in a conference with mostly Pacific Coast schools better than being in a conference with OK/TX/KS schools. Colorado did pretty good in the old Big 12 territory so why couldn't Air Force and Colorado St?

Sure it will suck not playing Wyoming and you'll miss New Mexico, but Utah and BYU are long gone....everyone else leans towards the Pacific coast. Why not fly east to border states instead of west?

Just look at a map. Sending your volleyball, soccer and softball teams to San Jose, Fresno and San Diego is easier than sending them to Philadelphia, Greenville and Tampa. It's roughly half the distance.

So...dumb question. Are you driving to any opponents in any sport outside your division (or even in it) in the MWC? I get that San Jose is closer. But is it that much more expensive to fly to Philly and play a more recognizable opponent?

I get this all come down to:

A) How much are these athletic departments paying for travel?
B) How much more would it be, particularly for a MWC team in Colorado, to fly to AAC cities (mostly Texahoma within their division) vs. California?

If the difference is in the millions, then of course a move up isn't worth it.

I’ll skip the hours of research it would take to answer that question and just say that, according to posts I’ve seen on the MWC board, when Boise State was taking a close look at joining the AAC it concluded the additional travel cost would be in the neighborhood of $1 million annually. Of course I have no idea what assumptions were made when that estimate was done, and obviously the cost for Front Range schools would be lower because they’re closer.

Having said that, the cost of more travel isn’t measured solely in dollars. The increased time out of the classroom is a concern for administrators, and the increased time on airplanes, on buses and in waiting rooms is a concern for coaches. It adversely affects athletes’ physical and mental preparedness to compete. As a Hawaii fan since the 1970s I’ve seen how it wears teams down over the course of a season. Every school plays worse on the road than at home but the road disadvantage increases disproportionately with the amount of time and effort spent getting to the destination.

I think this is something everyone forgets when talking about the cost of travel. It's draining to be on cross country flights and adjusting to time zones that are ahead of yours constantly.

Absolutely, and a state like California having a public school do that. Very hard for me to imagine.