(10-14-2021 10:37 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:21 AM)Johns1124 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:00 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  It boils down to financial commitment and facilities. When it all comes out you will be able to see the bread crumbs.

Makes no sense.

Why would anyone go ALL IN financially to a conference that may look radically different before the start of the next football season?

I don't think tbe AAC or any other conference will look radically different by next season. However, I do believe by 2024 the AAC will be CUSA 4.0 except under different leadership and with a similar team payout CUSA 2.0 had.

I also think the MWC will survive the loss of Boise and be better for it long term and the SBC will also become a stronger conference.

For now, I think Aresco is stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.

Different leadership and a better geographic alignment/rivalries would be worth a move. Even if money and exposure were the same.

(10-14-2021 10:39 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:37 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:21 AM)Johns1124 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:00 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  It boils down to financial commitment and facilities. When it all comes out you will be able to see the bread crumbs.

Makes no sense.

Why would anyone go ALL IN financially to a conference that may look radically different before the start of the next football season?

I don't think tbe AAC or any other conference will look radically different by next season. However, I do believe by 2024 the AAC will be CUSA 4.0 except under different leadership and with a similar team payout CUSA 2.0 had.

I also think the MWC will survive the loss of Boise and be better for it long term and the SBC will also become a stronger conference.

For now, I think Aresco is stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.

Different leadership and a better geographic alignment/rivalries would be worth a move. Even if money and exposure were the same.

Personally, I think if you could change the leadership, implement some of the ideas from Judy's letter, and eliminate having to pay a exit/entry fee that would be best for all parties.

(10-14-2021 10:08 AM)Johns1124 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:00 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:57 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:52 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  They have agreed to three schools. The fourth is the issue.

UAB, Rice, Charlotte?

I am not at liberty to say. Its not what many think. It boils down to financial commitment and facilities. When it all comes out you will be able to see the bread crumbs.

Means he doesn't know zilch.

I actually know a lot, but I am smart enough not to throw it all over the internet. The AAC has been clear to those interested in joining, what they will need in order to get in. To some its a mountain to others its a mole hill. The financial commitment to get in is only 2.5 million dollars, but the requirements for facility upgrades, sustainable budget of 40 million plus and full COA are all major factors. That is where it gets tricky. Some schools have great brands and quality teams or markets but can't realistically invest heavily into a conference that is going to be better but not light years better than what they are doing right now. Then you take into account the MWC that wants to move into Texas. UNT, UTSA, Rice, Tech, UTEP can all push for inclusion into the MWC without having to put as much financially into their programs as the AAC are requiring. Then you look at the Eastern Schools CUSA. They have an opportunity at building that Eastern Conference they have been dreaming of if things fall the right way. With no Texas schools, no USM or Tech, they could add Liberty, JMU and maybe another to the CUSA and not have to drown their Athletic Department in red. They keep the CUSA brand, keep exit fees and keep the NCAA units that go with CUSA. It comes down to who in this situation stands to lose the most by realignment, who stands the most to gain, and who is desperate enough to plunk down some serious cash to step up to the AAC.

At some point we are going to see some type of alliance/merger and that will be the ultimate endgame.

Aresco's next big play is to raid the Big10 and the ACC.

I heard he also had designs on the PAC12, but the recent Southwest Airlines flight cancellations have put those plans on hold.

Honestly what does the AAC have to offer after, as another poster put it, they were bi*tch slapped by the Big12?

(10-14-2021 10:53 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:08 AM)Johns1124 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:00 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:57 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:52 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  They have agreed to three schools. The fourth is the issue.

UAB, Rice, Charlotte?

I am not at liberty to say. Its not what many think. It boils down to financial commitment and facilities. When it all comes out you will be able to see the bread crumbs.

Means he doesn't know zilch.

I actually know a lot, but I am smart enough not to throw it all over the internet. The AAC has been clear to those interested in joining, what they will need in order to get in. To some its a mountain to others its a mole hill. The financial commitment to get in is only 2.5 million dollars, but the requirements for facility upgrades, sustainable budget of 40 million plus and full COA are all major factors. That is where it gets tricky. Some schools have great brands and quality teams or markets but can't realistically invest heavily into a conference that is going to be better but not light years better than what they are doing right now. Then you take into account the MWC that wants to move into Texas. UNT, UTSA, Rice, Tech, UTEP can all push for inclusion into the MWC without having to put as much financially into their programs as the AAC are requiring. Then you look at the Eastern Schools CUSA. They have an opportunity at building that Eastern Conference they have been dreaming of if things fall the right way. With no Texas schools, no USM or Tech, they could add Liberty, JMU and maybe another to the CUSA and not have to drown their Athletic Department in red. They keep the CUSA brand, keep exit fees and keep the NCAA units that go with CUSA. It comes down to who in this situation stands to lose the most by realignment, who stands the most to gain, and who is desperate enough to plunk down some serious cash to step up to the AAC.

Sounds to me from your description, that its not so much who the AAC really wants, rather than who is a reasonable choice and willing to check off all the items on their list in terms of facilities, budget and commitment. Which still keeps all of the usual suspects in play. Marshall (maybe), ODU, Charlotte, UAB, UNT, UTSA, GSU, Rice, Buffalo. Not sure if all of those schools are interested though. But if the AAC is interested most in the items you say, that makes me think they could expand by 4 or 6 teams if that many are willing to invest as required.

(10-14-2021 09:57 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 09:52 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  They have agreed to three schools. The fourth is the issue.

UAB, Rice, Charlotte?

(10-14-2021 10:21 AM)Johns1124 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:00 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  It boils down to financial commitment and facilities. When it all comes out you will be able to see the bread crumbs.

Makes no sense.

Why would anyone go ALL IN financially to a conference that may look radically different before the start of the next football season?

I don't know anything, but if it is only CUSA schools, my guess is:

EAST (not CUSA east, just geographically for AAC

1. UAB - just not really any big negatives.
2. Either Marshall or Charlotte. I lean towards Marshall, but the market and money leans to Charlotte. I think Florida schools are out because of USF

From the west:
1. Rice - I think they realize that CUSA is rudderless and it's time to ante up on athletics facilities and join their former conference mates. It's a historic brand with a big market potential to replace Houston. They'd certainly have the votes of SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Memphis.
2. Either LA Tech or UNT, and it's a close call between them. Probably depends on the same block of 4 schools that will boost rice.

I think UTSA has too many negatives on the non-football sports. I'll say though that if they had an on-campus stadium, they'd probably be the favorite.

I think Aresco is still trying to poach the MWC by getting a critical mass to agree to a move.

(10-14-2021 10:21 AM)Johns1124 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:00 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  It boils down to financial commitment and facilities. When it all comes out you will be able to see the bread crumbs.

Makes no sense.

Why would anyone go ALL IN financially to a conference that may look radically different before the start of the next football season?

Because if everyone left is willing to spend at a high level--then the quality will still be there regardless of who the players are (see Liberty as an example). There may not be a dominant team---but every year there will be someone playing at a high level---and much of the rest of the league probably wont be far behind due to their financial commitment level. Sure---teams will ebb and flow---and some years the league might knock each other off--but the overall quality of a league where all the athletic departments are willing to spend at a high level should be solid. There is a definite logical method to the madness. Maybe it works---maybe it doesnt---but I can certainly see what the thinking is behind the AAC budget demands.

(10-14-2021 11:04 AM)b2b Wrote:  I think Aresco is still trying to poach the MWC by getting a critical mass to agree to a move.

He struck out with Boise State and San Diego State.

He then struck out with Air Force and Colorado State.

Who's he chasing now, New Mexico and any atomic waste left at Los Alamos?

(10-14-2021 10:27 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Believe the MAC had conversations with Marshall, JMU and UMass per a post on the MAC board. The president said the future of UMass football will be discussed at the end of the season and both the AD and HC have specifically mentioned the MAC and a need for a conference home and Walt Bell said a financial commitment to be in a conference. Don't expect any changes with the MAC, but everyone is being prudent. Will add, even though not very good, taking UConn-UMass adds a built in rivalry but has to be FB only as UConn is not leaving the Big East.

I would take UMASS for all sports....neither of you should get invited to anywhere as a football only lol

(10-14-2021 11:11 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:04 AM)b2b Wrote:  I think Aresco is still trying to poach the MWC by getting a critical mass to agree to a move.

He struck out with Boise State and San Diego State.

He then struck out with Air Force and Colorado State.

Who's he chasing now, New Mexico and any atomic waste left at Los Alamos?

So you don't understand what critical mass actually means. It's got to be more than 4.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(10-14-2021 11:13 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:11 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:04 AM)b2b Wrote:  I think Aresco is still trying to poach the MWC by getting a critical mass to agree to a move.

He struck out with Boise State and San Diego State.

He then struck out with Air Force and Colorado State.

Who's he chasing now, New Mexico and any atomic waste left at Los Alamos?

So you don't understand what critical mass actually means. It's got to be more than 4.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

I dont think it matters as long as Boise and SDSU think they are "next up" if the Big12 needs more teams. They are not going to spend entry/exit fees for a jump to the AAC if they believe a Big12 opening may occur between now and 2025. If those two arent part of the move---its going to be real hard to get the critical mass needed to get the ball rolling.

Just a question. What does UAB, who seems to be the one lock, gain from joining the AAC? Yes, the current TV revenue is $6MM higher annually, but the have to pay entry and exit fees plus they have to increase their budget at least $5MM a year (based on 2020 data from USA Today).

With the loss of Cincinnati and Houston, the AAC is a guaranteed multi-bid NCAA league anymore when you consider they are adding 3-4 schools from a one bid league. In football they are just another G5 league with similar, although currently, slightly better bowl tie-ins. I can’t think of any Olympic sport that the AAC is known for.

If the TV revenue is reduced, or additional schools leave, anyone going to the AAC essentially has gained little to nothing and spent a lot of money to do it. At least that’s how I see it.

I can see that the AAC might have some interest in UAB. That's a no-brainer, and maybe Old Dominion, but other than those two, who in their right mind would think they have any interest whatsoever in any other school in the CUSA? It is almost sad that the rest of the conference schools are jockeying to be selected. But that's just my humble opinion.

(10-14-2021 10:24 AM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 08:38 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  We're all making the assumption that the AAC will eventually have to add teams. We all know there are teams willing to sell their school's presidents children to get into the conference. It's been over a month now since the Big XII bitchslapped the AAC and took who they wanted. Two weeks since the MWC bitchslapped the AAC and told them hands off!

So what is really going on over in AAC land? What is the hold up with inviting programs?

Schools balking at entry fees...AAC is a wounded animal not really negotiating from a position of strength. Although, Judy with her letter threw him a lifeline.

Good point.

(10-14-2021 11:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:21 AM)Johns1124 Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 10:00 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  It boils down to financial commitment and facilities. When it all comes out you will be able to see the bread crumbs.

Makes no sense.

Why would anyone go ALL IN financially to a conference that may look radically different before the start of the next football season?

Because if everyone left is willing to spend at a high level--then the quality will still be there regardless of who the players are (see Liberty as an example). There may not be a dominant team---but every year there will be someone playing at a high level---and much of the rest of the league probably wont be far behind due to their financial commitment level. Sure---teams will ebb and flow---and some years the league might knock each other off--but the overall quality of a league where all the athletic departments are willing to spend at a high level should be solid. There is a definite logical method to the madness. Maybe it workds---maybe it doesnt---but I can certainly see what the thinking is.

Yessir. 100%.

(10-14-2021 11:13 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:11 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 11:04 AM)b2b Wrote:  I think Aresco is still trying to poach the MWC by getting a critical mass to agree to a move.

He struck out with Boise State and San Diego State.

He then struck out with Air Force and Colorado State.

Who's he chasing now, New Mexico and any atomic waste left at Los Alamos?

So you don't understand what critical mass actually means. It's got to be more than 4.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

What Aresco and Thompson should have been trying to do was a merger. I think that ship has sailed for Aresco and the MWC schools can see that staying will put them in the position of power and become the de facto G5 conference.

I do think Aresco is correct and maintaining the AAC standard no matter how difficult it maybe to maintain or future programs to achieve to ensure the conference remains relevant.

My no sources opinion is that Charlotte is going to end up being one of the teams added, probably with some kind of condition that they either have to have their stadium expanded before they join or play in BOA until they do.

(10-14-2021 11:17 AM)banker Wrote:  Just a question. What does UAB, who seems to be the one lock, gain from joining the AAC?

Leaving Judy behind.