NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:22 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327 ... 343  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:53 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:55 pm
Posts: 6
mozilla wrote:
ucfknation wrote:
mozilla wrote:
Thinking that maybe it is time for the AAC to look at Buffalo and Marshall....to complete the north division of the conference. And I believe it would be prudent to add a non-fb team to replace Navy's left out Olympic sports.


South:
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
Tulane
Memphis
UCF
USF

North:
Buffalo
Marshall
UConn
Temple
Cincinnati
Navy(fb only)
ECU


The two schools fit in geographically. Buffalo has AAU status and academics which fits in nicely with Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, UConn and Cincy. Buffalo also has a large research budget which is comparable with many schools.
Marshall gives Cincy a quality, close partner and helps bridge the south to the north. Marshall could also serve as a hub if Cincy decides to move on.
Both Buffalo and Marshall are in conferences that can be plundered which makes the transition all that easier(no lingering lawsuits).

The only question left...is.....who will fill in for Navy in the rest of the sports?
Options: College of Charleston, any UNC school, an A-10 school(SLU, Dayton), small private school in a quality market/area(Belmont, Hofstra, Northeastern, Detroit, Loyola Md, UEvansville), large state school without fb(UALR)? The AAC could afford to offer a bit more to the only non-fb team...just to lock the best school down.
*edit* Just thought about adding Boston U. for non-fb. Big school, AAU, great endowment....could fit quite well with Buffalo and Tulane being AAU.


I like your thinking but I think I have a better solution to Buffalo: The Ohio Bobcats.

Ohio is a WAY better basketball school than Buffalo is. Huge arena (with fans) and recent march success. When UCF was in the MAC, I was most impressed with Ohio's fanbase and I have heard the exact same thing from Temple fans. I think Temple even became rivals with them during their short stay in the MAC. Also, Marshall and Ohio are long-time rivals so if you do add Marshall they are a natural fit with Ohio.
Ohio is located perfectly to gap a northern division and I think Cincinnati and Ohio combined have a better shot to get press in the Buckeye State. If Ohio and UC became rivals that could get press around the state with lots of alums and even casual fans.
Ohio's football program is pretty solid too with Frank Solich. Bad year this year but they do have a bowl against new AAC member ECU. That bowl even said the reason they picked Ohio for the bowl over Toledo was because of a strong Ohio fanbase.

South:
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
Tulane
Memphis
UCF
USF

North:
Ohio
Marshall
UConn
Temple
Cincinnati
Navy(fb only)
ECU


I have no problem with Ohio. I just thought that the addition of two AAU schools(Buffalo, Boston) might help the AAC to get more respect than they are garnering at this time.
Plus, Buffalo and Boston are pretty major markets and pretty large schools...which you don't really get with Ohio.

But, with Ohio....you do get more of a center to the conference.

What if the AAC picked up Ohio, Buffalo and BostonU? And left Marshall off the list? Maybe two teams from the MAC would help foster rivalries better?

Yes Ohio, Boston and Buffalo would be a good mix.

Ohio is basically the same local market as Marshall except with Ohio you have the chance to get some interest in Cincinnati, Columbus and even Cleveland. You have OSU and UC to deal with but the good news is Ohio has huge alumni bases in all of those cities. By themselves UC and Ohio wouldn't have much success competing with OSU but together as rivals I bet they could get some solid interest. Not sure about Buffalo's outstanding rivalry with Ohio but they are both MAC East so it must be decent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1041
mozilla wrote:
Obviously you feel very strongly on the subject.


I just think what's going on at Temple really begs the question: when is a conference upgrade not really an upgrade?

To be fair to Temple, they are doing right by these kids by honoring the remainder of their scholarships, working on transfers, and are waiving the eligibility issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:50 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Austin, Texas
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
mozilla wrote:
Obviously you feel very strongly on the subject.


I just think what's going on at Temple really begs the question: when is a conference upgrade not really an upgrade?

To be fair to Temple, they are doing right by these kids by honoring the remainder of their scholarships, working on transfers, and are waiving the eligibility issues.


Maybe it's more of a change of direction....than a conference upgrade?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1041
mozilla wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
mozilla wrote:
Obviously you feel very strongly on the subject.


I just think what's going on at Temple really begs the question: when is a conference upgrade not really an upgrade?

To be fair to Temple, they are doing right by these kids by honoring the remainder of their scholarships, working on transfers, and are waiving the eligibility issues.


Maybe it's more of a change of direction....than a conference upgrade?


I don't know. When Temple entered the conference, the basketball schools were still a part of it, and that's a lot of what they really wanted. There's a rumor Temple agreed to partially subsidize Villanova's football upgrade as terms for full inclusion. There was also a lot more money on the table had no other schools walked away (UL, RU, SDSU, and BSU).

Maybe if Temple jumped today, it would be a change of direction. When they did, though, they certainly thought it was an upgrade. Boise State and SDSU definitely saw it as one, too, even if it meant leaving a pretty decent Mountain West. When too many chaser schools left, it no longer was, and they no longer were, either.

For UConn, it could be, though.

Outside of the AAC, I think the question should be posed to UMD and Rutgers. UMD has already expressed hope it can reinstate one or two of its programs, with the others still on the table. But, it's one thing to say that and another to actually do, especially when the timetable is in that nebulous 5-10 year future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:08 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:55 pm
Posts: 6
I don't think AAC hoops moving forward is a pretty good conference. If UConn and UC stay, then you have Memphis, Temple, Houston, Tulsa etc.... That is still a hoops league that'll get a solid number of fan interest and NCAA bids. Sure, it isn't the Old Big East but it has the key programs in place to be a top hoops conference.

What are the odds the next expansion (if it happens) is more focused on hoops than football?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1041
ucfknation wrote:
I don't think AAC hoops moving forward is a pretty good conference. If UConn and UC stay, then you have Memphis, Temple, Houston, Tulsa etc.... That is still a hoops league that'll get a solid number of fan interest and NCAA bids. Sure, it isn't the Old Big East but it has the key programs in place to be a top hoops conference.

What are the odds the next expansion (if it happens) is more focused on hoops than football?


Yeah, the AAC's hoops lineup isn't all that bad. UConn, Cincy, and Memphis are pretty strong and Temple definitely adds to that.

Next expansion will be about either football or market positioning, imo. I think they'll try to go after Army, Air Force, or BYU again. If that doesn't work, they'll rummage through CUSA some more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Austin, Texas
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
ucfknation wrote:
I don't think AAC hoops moving forward is a pretty good conference. If UConn and UC stay, then you have Memphis, Temple, Houston, Tulsa etc.... That is still a hoops league that'll get a solid number of fan interest and NCAA bids. Sure, it isn't the Old Big East but it has the key programs in place to be a top hoops conference.

What are the odds the next expansion (if it happens) is more focused on hoops than football?


Yeah, the AAC's hoops lineup isn't all that bad. UConn, Cincy, and Memphis are pretty strong and Temple definitely adds to that.

Next expansion will be about either football or market positioning, imo. I think they'll try to go after Army, Air Force, or BYU again. If that doesn't work, they'll rummage through CUSA some more.


As much as I respect the Armed Forces schools....wanting them to be a big participant in the AAC is like inviting a bunch of poppers to the country club. They don't have enough money to help the conference and the AAC really needs some 'splash'. If new schools are only judged on respect and quality of student....then the Armed Forces schools would be in the top conference. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
I could see it possibly working, if, they split the conference back up...into bb and fb sides. Though, it didn't work too well last time.
I don't know...with the lack of funds...any plan with military schools seems far fetched and uncertain. There are so many good(not great) universities with money(buffalo, utsa, charlotte, ohio, n. Illinois, Charleston, FIU, BostonU)....I don't see the reason to look military first. Unless, one school really wants it like Navy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:17 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1041
I think the AAC continues to woo the other two SAs and BYU for a few reasons: they are still the "best available" options, they are the programs that have most consensus among the current members, and because it's going to have to be these guys if they ever hope to keep Navy.

If Navy wasn't the respectable AD that they were, they'd have done what Boise had done when all of the schools and the AQ went. Where, in the past, the Big East/AAC wanted Army and Navy out of legacy and their place in the northeast, then Air Force and BYU because of their draw, now, getting Army, AFA, and BYU might be to keep Navy from leaving the next time the AAC's contract is up for renegotiation.

Navy's going to walk after they put in the time they originally agreed to. They wanted Pittsburgh, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, and a game in FL to go with their yearlies with ND and the other SA's, as well as the AQ of a major conference. They did not sign up for Tulane and Tulsa, with equal status to that one access point the Go5 has. They'd be better off going back into independence.

There's a reason Navy didn't rush into early AAC membership or give equal bowl access to the conference. They were genuinely upset by how they lied to by former members, but want to honor the agreement they thought they were getting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 3:07 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Austin, Texas
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think the AAC continues to woo the other two SAs and BYU for a few reasons: they are still the "best available" options, they are the programs that have most consensus among the current members, and because it's going to have to be these guys if they ever hope to keep Navy.

If Navy wasn't the respectable AD that they were, they'd have done what Boise had done when all of the schools and the AQ went. Where, in the past, the Big East/AAC wanted Army and Navy out of legacy and their place in the northeast, then Air Force and BYU because of their draw, now, getting Army, AFA, and BYU might be to keep Navy from leaving the next time the AAC's contract is up for renegotiation.

Navy's going to walk after they put in the time they originally agreed to. They wanted Pittsburgh, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, and a game in FL to go with their yearlies with ND and the other SA's, as well as the AQ of a major conference. They did not sign up for Tulane and Tulsa, with equal status to that one access point the Go5 has. They'd be better off going back into independence.

There's a reason Navy didn't rush into early AAC membership or give equal bowl access to the conference. They were genuinely upset by how they lied to by former members, but want to honor the agreement they thought they were getting.


I like all the AF schools. I just don't see all the pieces falling into place to land Army, AForce and BYU for fb only. I feel it would be better for the conference to land some all sports members.
Personally, I feel the AAC has less of a chance to land BYU than the MWC does.
But who knows? Stranger things have happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1696
I like even numbers and balance.

If you are going to have Navy for FB only, then you need Army for FB only.
Marinatto put together a hodge-podge, and the replacement commissioner presided over un-doing it, but the Navy FB-only thing sticks out liek a sore thumb.

They could go to 14 if they got Army for FB-only and UMass (or someone similar) for all sports. That would give 12 / 14.

A conference w/FB (MWC) will not / can not tolerate BYU or AFA as members, but playing FB elsewhere.
The $$$ carrot for being in BE Football (a BCS auto-bid) is long-gone.
It's hard to see BYU and AFA wanting to endure the travel to be members of the AAC, when those teams (other than Army / Navy for Air Force) are not natural rivals,
and the travel for their fans and visiting fans is so great it would really kill attendance.

I honestly think Air Force is happy with their situation, and was only looking when EVERYTHING was in a total state of flux.
BYU (after the WAC's "project" went awry) had burned bridges with the MWC, the WAC that BYU hoped for was destroyed, and so they went for FB independence,
trying to emulate Notre Dame's situation (they've managed to cobble together an OK schedule and a few lesser bowl tie-ins,
but BYU is still reeling that they didn't get a Power 5 invitation like Utah did).

Everyone assumes they are unwanted in the PAC, and AD Thomas Homloe has hinted that BYU has had behind-the-scenes conversations with the Big XII,
to try to avoid being left behind if realignment fires up again....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:54 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 64
The annual Army - Navy game is always played the week after the CCG's; that will never change: It must be an OoC game; Army and Navy cannot be in the same football conference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:59 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
Dennis wrote:
The annual Army - Navy game is always played the week after the CCG's; that will never change: It must be an OoC game; Army and Navy cannot be in the same football conference.

Why can't it change? It hasn't always been that weekend...

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:54 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 64
tkalmus wrote:
Dennis wrote:
The annual Army - Navy game is always played the week after the CCG's; that will never change: It must be an OoC game; Army and Navy cannot be in the same football conference.

Why can't it change? It hasn't always been that weekend...

Historically, it has always been the last regular season game of every college football season. It was played on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. When the football season was lengthened, more teams started to play on that day, so the Army - Navy game was moved to the first Saturday in December. When CCG's were scheduled for that same day, the Army - Navy game was moved to the second Saturday in December. It remains the last regular season game of every college football season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:59 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
tkalmus wrote:
Dennis wrote:
The annual Army - Navy game is always played the week after the CCG's; that will never change: It must be an OoC game; Army and Navy cannot be in the same football conference.

Why can't it change? It hasn't always been that weekend...

Yeah, it used to be on the same weekend as the championship games. You could put it on black fri. or the day after if they're in the same conf. but I don't think Army will join b/c they'd be at the bottom of the conf. every year. If they ever joined a cconf. the MAC would be a far better fit for their program.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1041
Before the Big East finally splintered, the pursuit of both Army and Navy drew quite a few pieces and quotes from the two Service Academies' administrators. Both weren't concerned their game with each other was ever really in jeopardy whether together in a conference or apart, iirc.

It wasn't until the late 80's and early 90's when both SA's turned cool on the notion of joining a conference together. And that was when they didn't want to join one because of them being so horribly bad and unable to compete. They were fine until that time with a conference between 8-10 members, even willing to offer themselves up to schools like PSU, Pitt, and Syracuse when those three were obliterating CFB.

The Big East Navy thought it was getting was eventually a 10+ member one. Navy knew Army-Navy was safe, and I suspect that it will be regardless of the conference affiliation, CCG or no. THAT's how badly the Big East/AAC wants these guys.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327 ... 343  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group