(10-07-2021 01:24 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 09:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:54 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:11 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  He is wrong.

We dragged out the rules before with the big 12 there are several different NCAA ones including that you may not move a sport sponsored by your home conference to another. That would include football. We end up with affiliate sports because that conference does not have that sport.

Sigh. I was the one who provided them. Here they are again. Nowhere does it say you can play in the conference---or as an indy outside of the conference. Nowhere does it say you cant play football in a different conference. All the NCAA rules do is simply define the minimum standards a conference must meet to be considered a conference.

20.02.5 Multisport Conference. A Division I multisport conference shall satisfy the requirements of this
section. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
20.02.5.2 Sports Sponsorship. A multisport conference shall satisfy the following requirements: (Adopted:
1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports;
(b) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports, one of which shall be men’s basketball. In
addition to men’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor football or two other men’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor men’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including football or two additional men’s team sports; and
© The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six women’s sports, one of which shall be women’s basketball. In addition to women’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor two other women’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor women’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
2017-18 Division I – August
20DIVISION MEMBERSHIP
352
five other sports, including two additional women’s team sports (or a minimum of five members for an
emerging sport for women).
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. Multisport conference members shall participate in
regular-season conference competition, subject to the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) Basketball teams shall participate in a regular-season conference schedule of a double round robin, inseason competition, or a minimum of 14 regular-season conference contests;
(b) In football or in a minimum of two men’s team sports other than men’s basketball [as required in Bylaw
20.02.5.2-(b)], teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A
minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams
at its home venue; and
© In a minimum of two women’s team sports other than women’s basketball (as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2),
teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of
five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home
venue.
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the
requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years.


20.02.6 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference. A conference classified as a Football Bowl Subdivision
conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision requirements. An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members
only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men’s and eight women’s conferencesponsored sports, including men’s basketball and football and three women’s team sports including women’s basketball. A conference-sponsored sport shall be a sport in which regular-season and/or championship opportunities
are provided, consistent with the minimum standards identified by the applicable NCAA sport committee for
automatic qualification. (Adopted: 10/31/02 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
20.02.6.1 Exception. A Football Bowl Subdivision member institution shall be permitted to count as one
of its required six men’s sports and one of its required eight women’s sports a sport in which its conference does
not sponsor or conduct a championship, provided the sport is one in which it participates in another Division
I multi- or single-sport conference. Different sports may be counted for men and women. (Adopted: 4/29/04
effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
20.02.6.2 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member
requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements. (Adopted: 4/28/05 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
20.02.7 Full Grant. For purposes of Bylaw 20, a full grant is the value of tuition and fees, room and board,
and required course-related books. (Adopted: 1/17/15 effective 8/1/15)

The bolded was exactly what I was talking about.

If you sponsor men's basketball and not men's football then you must meet the first requirement to be a member, A.

If you play football you must meet the football requirement and two other men's sports besides men's basketball, B. If you do not it is not your home conference and you do not count towards the conference total under the membership count for a multisport conference.

ND is a member of the ACC using the first rule and maintains the ACC membership by virtue of having football independent. If they put their football in the Big 10 they would lose the ACC as its home conference as it would need to qualify under the second requirement which means basketball and two other men's sports.

Correct. Perhaps Im not making it clear. Thats exactly what I was saying. The NCAA only cares that your conference meets the minimum requirements. So---if you have 8 members that satisfy all the requirements for both your home conference and your FBS conference---then that 9th member school can do any darn thing it wants. Neither the football conference or the FBS conference will be endangered by the fact that 9th school is playing certain sports in another conference (because you have at least 8 or more other schools that DO satisfy the requirements).

Its no different than our situation with Navy. Our home conference is not affected by the fact Navy isnt playing its olympics here because we have plenty of other members to satisfy the conference minimum requirements. Its not an issue that Navy plays football here because we have 10 other schools that are members of the home conference and also play football in the league. BUT---when Houston/UCF/Cinci leave---the football league would appear to still have the 8 teams required---BUT---Navy's status as a "football only" would now become a problem as the football side only has 7 members that play all the required olympic sports together---thus Navy cannot help the AAC meet that 8 team minimum. Thats why we actually cannot stand pat as some have suggested. At a minimum, we have to add one football playing "all sports" member just to meet the minimum FBS requirements.

So make Navy become an all sports member. Thats probably the simplest solution.

Or UAB would be fine as well. Ive expressed skepticism as to whether they can keep it going after Clark leaves--but they still make sense and I dont think they will probably be the crappy program they used to be---even without Clark. UAB has the academics, decent basketball, upgraded facilities, and they have given their program a chance to be decent at football--at the very least from time to time--perhaps even more often than that. Plus they are in a decent metro area--thats an overall solid #9 pick. The reality is the only other option that checks that many boxes is Buffalo. After those two---its mostly schools that check one or two boxes and are bad or unknowns beyond that. Marshall, AppSt, and LaTech would be my top picks in that next group.

(10-07-2021 04:45 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  2 full members:
UAB, Marshall

2 FB only members:
Army, App State

2 Non-FB:
VCU, one other.

Stop there. Wait for more moves to happen. If Boise leaves for the B12 with Memphis, and Army and Navy are both in the AAC, then grabbing as many of the western wing as you want to have Air Force join will give the AAC the de facto #6 league and kill off the prominence of the MWC. Pods, 3 divisions, whatever makes it work at that point. Add Gonzaga at that point too.

Soccer note:

Go all out and raid CUSA soccer as well. If they are only affiliate members, it would become a great soccer league as well.

Grab South Carolina, Kentucky, WVU, Coastal.

I think WVU and UK would come with us. No idea about South Carolina, but I imagine they would come if WVU and Kentucky were coming.

WVU and UK are solid. South Carolina is currently down, but overall a good program.

Way to go non AAC posters telling the conference what to do like you're in the conference already!

Woohoo!!!!

(10-06-2021 08:20 AM)b2b Wrote:  Is it possible that some of the SBC and CUSA schools simply can't afford to pay the fees to move? Seems like LA Tech could be one since they've got one of the smallest budgets in FBS.

Good, and fair question. I do know that because LA Tech has essentially no debt on it's balance sheet, and already owns its' new and updated athletic facilities free and clear (assets) of debt, that makes LA Tech is one of very few CUSA schools who actually REALLY CAN AFFORD TO DO THIS.

In LA Tech's case, the increase in conference monies that would come from the AAC (probably a net increase of between $3M and $4 million minimum per year) essentially goes straight to LA Tech's bottom line, since there's no associated debt that needs to be retired. With an increase in conference revenue of $4 million per year, Tech can borrow money from it's foundation for CUSA exit fees ($5M) and the AAC's Entrance Fees ($7M to $10M) and even in the worst case scenario, still have an ROI payback period of LESS THAN 5 YEARS!! So, YES, LA Tech CAN DO THIS.

It's amazing what you can do when you have no debt. Furthermore, LA Tech is consistently one of the top 3 CUSA schools with the largest "donation" pool.

I have no idea what the AAC will do. For all I know, the AAC may just hate Tech or love 'em. But, the fact is, LA Tech's great Financial position and Balance Sheet, combined with its' consistently winning football, mens basketball and baseball programs, has to make LA Tech a leading candidate for one of the open spots if the AAC decides to add 4 schools or more.

(10-06-2021 04:41 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  AAC East 1.1...............AAC East 2.0

Cincinnati*^+.............Appalachian State*
UCF*^.......................Marshall*^
UConn^+...................Buffalo*^+
Temple^....................Temple^
ECU...........................ECU
USF...........................USF
................................UAB^

You know I've been "meh" on moving from the MAC to AAC after the last round of teams getting taken but I think this East Division could really work for Buffalo.

(10-06-2021 08:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:18 AM)LaTex14 Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:06 AM)LaTex14 Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 07:58 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Why would the AAC want 3 schools in Louisiana?

LaTech is closer to SMU and Memphis than Tulane.

UL would be a good regional rival for Tulane.

Both schools are really good at basketball/football/baseball.

Aside from any talk of markets or institutional fit La Tech has to double their budget to get within spitting distance of the bottom of the AAC currently. That's not reasonable.

Oh yeah I agree. It’s bad. Worst in FBS almost.

Maybe there’s someone more qualified to talk about it on here.
But I know LaTech doesn’t have any athletic student fees. Also has the lowest % of institutional support.

Quote:Percent of Budget Subsidized in 2019

La Tech- 43.92%
So Miss- 44.85%
Marshall- 47.78%
FAU - 57.03%
Louisiana- 57.22%
App St- 57.97%
Ga St- 60.39%
UTSA- 60.87%
Old Dominion- 61.3%
UAB- 63.32%
Charlotte- 68%
North Texas 68.95%

I think there is room to grow if LaTech got a fee and admin put money up.

I think I've heard they have no student fees, and if you look at the knight commission website none shows up. So in theory there is an avenue to raise their budget substantially quickly, but do they want to or are they even able to? It's hard for me to believe you could even exist as an FBS program without having 1, so there's gotta be reasons I don't know about that they don't have one.

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org...he_money-1

You are correct. If LA Tech was invited to join the AAC, for the first time ever LA Tech would implement a Student fee system that would boost Tech's athletic budget overnight between $9M to $12M per year. A student fee has never been needed in the past for Tech, and frankly, it would probably only be "for show' going forward. But these new student fee monies --in conjunction with some additional donor commitments being pledged-- would very likely boost LA Tech's budget to over $40M per year in a very short period of time.

(10-06-2021 12:11 PM)Cerebus Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 08:23 AM)LaTex14 Wrote:  - UNT’s athletic budget is already 70% subsidized. So I think you could see some hesitation there.

Important to note that our Athletics Fees were passed via student referendums. Last increase was in 2018, when students voted to raise the fee to $16.25/credit hour.

So yes, subsidized, but the students are the ones imposing the fees on themselves to get better athletics.

I see our debt has also been reported as about 80 million. NT built a stadium in 2011 and the construction bonds are counted on our budget. Again, those construction bonds were bought after another student vote to raise the fee to afford them.

And UNT (with $81Million already borrowed) is a great example of a school that has maxed out their credit card, in terms of borrowing money and taxing the students with student fees. You can only take that stuff so far. UNT is exactly the opposite of how LA Tech has managed its' money and assets, and now I'm guessing there's no way UNT can afford to pay entrance and exit fees totaling $17M, without still again borrowing even more money, which would escalate UNT's athletic borrowing to over $98 Million. That debt is enormous, and still has to be serviced.

(10-06-2021 02:08 PM)LaTex14 Wrote:  - Apparently the University of Louisiana athletic department can’t hire replacements for people who have left because of budget problems on RP.
- I read LaTech wants a student fee on BBB.
- UTSA’s budget issue story originated on the C-USA board so I’m not sure if it’s true.
- I don’t think Rice wasn’t to spend money to go to AAC after they had 300 people at their last home game.

UTSA's "budget" story is true. Though UTSA only has $1.8M in athletic debt, they also don't own any athletic assets to speak of. For instance --as some others astutely pointed out-- UTSA plays basketball in the equivalent of a community college gym. They play baseball on a field that looks like it belongs to a Class single A high school. And of course, UTSA doesn't have a football field, but rather play games 18 miles away in the Alamodome downtown. I'm sure they have a long lease commitment --a liability on the balance sheet-- for that.

I only mention these issues to make the point that UTSA doesn't own a lot of athletic assets, and most of the assets they do own are in serious need of upgrading, renovation or replacement. It's the equivalent of a salesman needing to buy a car to go to work before he can accept the job that will pay him 100K per year.

(10-06-2021 02:54 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 02:44 PM)LaTex14 Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 02:41 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 12:54 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 09:38 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  My opinion is 10

UAB and

UTSA or Rice if Navy wants another Texas school and if we want to keep the option of MWC in future.

Or

Marshall or App State if we want to help shore up football right now.

I pretty much agree with Cubanbull, however I don't see us having to shore up football right now.

Football can shore itself up by teams in this league just playing better. Temple/USF/Navy have all been top 25 teams in the very recent past, and obviously ECU could actually start carrying some of it's own weight and that would solve football way more than any additions that would say yes at this point. Basketball is what actually needs to be shorn up, but it's the one I don't think is actually possible to do. UAB and Buffalo would probably be solid mid-pack teams but that's where the league lost things that can't be replaced.

Yeah I think only schools with historically Top 150 basketball programs should be on the short list.

That’s not even that high of a bar.

That would mean:
- Buffalo
- ODU
- GA State
- UAB
- Louisiana
- Louisiana Tech
- Marshall

Add some combination of VCU, St. Louis or Dayton if you want to sure up basketball.

Why would those schools join the AAC?

(10-07-2021 07:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 04:41 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  AAC East 1.1...............AAC East 2.0

Cincinnati*^+.............Appalachian State*
UCF*^.......................Marshall*^
UConn^+...................Buffalo*^+
Temple^....................Temple^
ECU...........................ECU
USF...........................USF
................................UAB^

You know I've been "meh" on moving from the MAC to AAC after the last round of teams getting taken but I think this East Division could really work for Buffalo.

Glad to hear it - - and I think you're right.

Buffalo's athletic programs could make major strides if UB joins the AAC. It could vault practically overnight from being a contender in a regional conference to becoming a player on the national stage.

Buffalo fans could help make it happen by expressing their encouragement to UB's President and Board of Trustees.

(10-07-2021 04:06 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

Quote:So make Navy become an all sports member. Thats probably the simplest solution.

1. That’s not happening.

2. Navy may be one of the most valuable pieces in the AAC. We aren’t “making them” do anything. Navy knows who’s the boss. They did independent just fine and can again.

Roger that ! The Patriot League is a perfect fit for Army & Navy.

I think you go with 1 or 2 of UAB, Rice &/or Buffalo if you consider the totality of the circumstances. We need to leave room just in case. That said, I'm all for olympic adds from the A10 like St. Louis, Dayton, VCU, perhaps even Richmond & Davidson. Teams like App St, CC, Marshall, UTSA, FAU & Liberty are somewhat intriguing from a football standpoint but just don't cut it from an institutional/ historical perspective per the criteria.

Looking at the last major round of realignment (2010-2014), the Big East/AAC lost:

1. West Virginia
2. Rutgers
3. Pittsburgh
4. Syracuse
5. Louisville

and replaced them with

1. Temple
2. Memphis
3. SMU
4. Central Florida
5. Tulsa
6. Tulane
7. East Carolina
8. UConn
9. Houston

not in that order, however.

It should be said that Cincinnati and South Florida were the only Big East members still left from the 2005 additions with the Catholic 7 also in the league after the Big East lost Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College to the ACC.


It was a realignment mess of sorts.

The AAC is finding out that a few of their prospective candidates can't afford the budget requirements of the AAC. The AAC could add 6 full members, if there were 6 schools that could hit the $50 Million budget plateau either now or by the time conference membership shifts occur.

(10-07-2021 07:49 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 02:08 PM)LaTex14 Wrote:  - Apparently the University of Louisiana athletic department can’t hire replacements for people who have left because of budget problems on RP.
- I read LaTech wants a student fee on BBB.
- UTSA’s budget issue story originated on the C-USA board so I’m not sure if it’s true.
- I don’t think Rice wasn’t to spend money to go to AAC after they had 300 people at their last home game.

UTSA's "budget" story is true. Though UTSA only has $1.8M in athletic debt, they also don't own any athletic assets to speak of. For instance --as some others astutely pointed out-- UTSA plays basketball in the equivalent of a community college gym. They play baseball on a field that looks like it belongs to a Class single A high school. And of course, UTSA doesn't have a football field, but rather play games 18 miles away in the Alamodome downtown. I'm sure they have a long lease commitment --a liability on the balance sheet-- for that.

I only mention these issues to make the point that UTSA doesn't own a lot of athletic assets, and most of the assets they do own are in serious need of upgrading, renovation or replacement. It's the equivalent of a salesman needing to buy a car to go to work before he can accept the job that will pay him 100K per year.

UTSA doesnt pay anything for the Alamodome, the city of San Antonio keeps beer, alcohol and concession sales. So no, not a liability.

(10-08-2021 08:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-07-2021 07:49 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 02:08 PM)LaTex14 Wrote:  - Apparently the University of Louisiana athletic department can’t hire replacements for people who have left because of budget problems on RP.
- I read LaTech wants a student fee on BBB.
- UTSA’s budget issue story originated on the C-USA board so I’m not sure if it’s true.
- I don’t think Rice wasn’t to spend money to go to AAC after they had 300 people at their last home game.

UTSA's "budget" story is true. Though UTSA only has $1.8M in athletic debt, they also don't own any athletic assets to speak of. For instance --as some others astutely pointed out-- UTSA plays basketball in the equivalent of a community college gym. They play baseball on a field that looks like it belongs to a Class single A high school. And of course, UTSA doesn't have a football field, but rather play games 18 miles away in the Alamodome downtown. I'm sure they have a long lease commitment --a liability on the balance sheet-- for that.

I only mention these issues to make the point that UTSA doesn't own a lot of athletic assets, and most of the assets they do own are in serious need of upgrading, renovation or replacement. It's the equivalent of a salesman needing to buy a car to go to work before he can accept the job that will pay him 100K per year.

UTSA doesnt pay anything for the Alamodome, the city of San Antonio keeps beer, alcohol and concession sales. So no, not a liability.

Nor is it an asset on UTSA's balance sheet. Furthermore, nothing has changed. Regardless of what kind of contract UAB has with the Alamodome, it's NOT their asset. Honestly, I don't think I would even tell that if it was true. LOL! There's about a million things that could happen to a public venue like that (the Alamo Dome) that could change and theoretically leave UTSA high and dry, and looking for a place to play home football games in the future. That's exactly the kind of risk a higher level conference concerned about member finances should be concerned about.

(10-09-2021 08:33 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-08-2021 08:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-07-2021 07:49 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(10-06-2021 02:08 PM)LaTex14 Wrote:  - Apparently the University of Louisiana athletic department can’t hire replacements for people who have left because of budget problems on RP.
- I read LaTech wants a student fee on BBB.
- UTSA’s budget issue story originated on the C-USA board so I’m not sure if it’s true.
- I don’t think Rice wasn’t to spend money to go to AAC after they had 300 people at their last home game.

UTSA's "budget" story is true. Though UTSA only has $1.8M in athletic debt, they also don't own any athletic assets to speak of. For instance --as some others astutely pointed out-- UTSA plays basketball in the equivalent of a community college gym. They play baseball on a field that looks like it belongs to a Class single A high school. And of course, UTSA doesn't have a football field, but rather play games 18 miles away in the Alamodome downtown. I'm sure they have a long lease commitment --a liability on the balance sheet-- for that.

I only mention these issues to make the point that UTSA doesn't own a lot of athletic assets, and most of the assets they do own are in serious need of upgrading, renovation or replacement. It's the equivalent of a salesman needing to buy a car to go to work before he can accept the job that will pay him 100K per year.

UTSA doesnt pay anything for the Alamodome, the city of San Antonio keeps beer, alcohol and concession sales. So no, not a liability.

Nor is it an asset on UTSA's balance sheet. Furthermore, nothing has changed. Regardless of what kind of contract UAB has with the Alamodome, it's NOT their asset. Honestly, I don't think I would even tell that if it was true. LOL! There's about a million things that could happen to a public venue like that (the Alamo Dome) that could change and theoretically leave UTSA high and dry, and looking for a place to play home football games in the future. That's exactly the kind of risk a higher level conference concerned about member finances should be concerned about.

UTSA keeps all ticket sales and they have at least a 30 year lease on the Alamodome as long as the city keeps upgrading it. The city upgrades the Alamodome because it likes to keep bringing the NCAA tournament every couple of years, so it benefits both, the city of San Antonio and UTSA.

Quote:UTSA keeps all ticket sales and they have at least a 30 year lease on the Alamodome as long as the city keeps upgrading it. The city upgrades the Alamodome because it likes to keep bringing the NCAA tournament every couple of years, so it benefits both, the city of San Antonio and UTSA.

Additionally, even though an on campus stadium would definitely be great the dome does have its advantages.

• the weather never affects a game
• Texas is hot during football.......dome is 72 all the time
• those attending the game are very close to downtown
  

(10-11-2021 08:25 AM)lebomb Wrote:  

Quote:UTSA keeps all ticket sales and they have at least a 30 year lease on the Alamodome as long as the city keeps upgrading it. The city upgrades the Alamodome because it likes to keep bringing the NCAA tournament every couple of years, so it benefits both, the city of San Antonio and UTSA.

Additionally, even though an on campus stadium would definitely be great the dome does have its advantages.

• the weather never affects a game
• Texas is hot during football.......dome is 72 all the time
• those attending the game are very close to downtown
  

As long as there is no pro football team in San Antonio---the Alamodome is not a bad option. I love our stadium---at night---even in early September. But those September afternoon kick offs at TDECU are miserable.

(10-08-2021 05:22 AM)All4One Wrote:  Looking at the last major round of realignment (2010-2014), the Big East/AAC lost:

1. West Virginia
2. Rutgers
3. Pittsburgh
4. Syracuse
5. Louisville

and replaced them with

1. Temple
2. Memphis
3. SMU
4. Central Florida
5. Tulsa
6. Tulane
7. East Carolina
8. UConn
9. Houston

not in that order, however.

It should be said that Cincinnati and South Florida were the only Big East members still left from the 2005 additions with the Catholic 7 also in the league after the Big East lost Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College to the ACC.


It was a realignment mess of sorts.

The AAC is finding out that a few of their prospective candidates can't afford the budget requirements of the AAC. The AAC could add 6 full members, if there were 6 schools that could hit the $50 Million budget plateau either now or by the time conference membership shifts occur.

Three questions:

1. Do we know - - or do we have any idea about - - which schools can't meet the AAC's budget requirements?

---UTSA has been rumored to have dropped out because they can't meet these requirements. Are there any others? If so, what are the other schools?


2. If we have some idea - - are the schools that can't meet the requirements closer to the top or to the bottom of the AAC's short list?

---This is of interest because if it's not one of the more highly ranked schools on the short list, the AAC can just drop them from consideration with no harm being done.

---However, it if is a highly ranked school (e.g., App State), the AAC presidents could meet to hash out some kind of solution, such as a bridge loan, which they could repay by having the amount deducted from their revenue distributions.


3. If the AAC's budget requirements are preventing the AAC from adding some of its most preferred schools, wouldn't it make the most sense to vote on changing their budget requirements?

(10-08-2021 05:22 AM)All4One Wrote:  Looking at the last major round of realignment (2010-2014), the Big East/AAC lost:

1. West Virginia
2. Rutgers
3. Pittsburgh
4. Syracuse
5. Louisville

and replaced them with

1. Temple
2. Memphis
3. SMU
4. Central Florida
5. Tulsa
6. Tulane
7. East Carolina
8. UConn
9. Houston

not in that order, however.

It should be said that Cincinnati and South Florida were the only Big East members still left from the 2005 additions with the Catholic 7 also in the league after the Big East lost Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College to the ACC.


It was a realignment mess of sorts.

The AAC is finding out that a few of their prospective candidates can't afford the budget requirements of the AAC. The AAC could add 6 full members, if there were 6 schools that could hit the $50 Million budget plateau either now or by the time conference membership shifts occur.

Three questions:

1. Do we know - - or do we have any idea about - - which schools can't meet the AAC's budget requirements?

---UTSA has been rumored to have dropped out because they can't meet these requirements. Are there any others? If so, what are the other schools?


2. If we have some idea - - are the schools that can't meet the requirements closer to the top or to the bottom of the AAC's short list?

---This is of interest because if it's not one of the more highly ranked schools on the short list, the AAC can just drop them from consideration with no harm being done.

---However, it if is a highly ranked school (e.g., App State), the AAC presidents could meet to hash out some kind of solution, such as a bridge loan, which they could repay by having the amount deducted from their revenue distributions.


3. If the AAC's budget requirements are preventing the AAC from adding some of its most preferred schools, wouldn't it make the most sense to vote on changing their budget requirements?