The AAC needs to be more than CUSA south upgraded.
The good tv markets are in Fla Texas and the NE(Navy,Army,UmAss,Temple,Uconn,Cinn,Ecarolina)

Not to be rude, but the AAC is C-USA reborn:

Cincinnati--1995-2004
South Florida--1995-2004
Memphis--1995-2012
Tulane--1995-2013
Houston--1996-2012
East Carolina--1997-2013
Central Florida--2005-2012
SMU--2005-2012
Tulsa--2005-2013

UConn, Temple, and Navy are the only ones who never spent time in C-USA. The only real difference is that they have cut out some of the old C-USA's weaker markets and under-performing programs.

Also Cinn and Sfla are quite a bit different having been in the old BE since 2004.

Not really. That conference affiliation made their program. They weren't anything before it. USF almost literally. They used to have a place at the BCS table, which helped in their recruiting. Now, I'm not so sure...especially USF.

Were the South not so saturated with FBS programs, those AAC schools down those parts should consider putting together their own thing. Bridge Texas to Florida, and you'll get the eyes. It's certainly the right region for the sport.

Without a northern division the AAC is purely CUSA.

Compare the AAC to the SEC and the ACC its a distant third in the south.

The AAC needs a northern and eastern division.

Correction! C-USA had a northern division aspect from 1995-96 to 2004-05 (i.e.: Cincinnati, DePaul, Marquette, St. Louis). Ever since then, C-USA is specifically in the Southeast. So yes, the AAC is mostly like what C-USA is today.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!

I was thinking, take those southern AAC schools and take some of the CUSA ones there now (UTSA, USM, UAB, LaTech).

That there's a "north" to both CUSA and AAC...that's precisely the problem. The issue with both conferences have been getting way too heavy in the south without proper northern balance.

I would say the problem is not that C-USA and AAC are southern heavy--its that there are no good northern options to be had:

UMass--an FCS upgrade who went 1-11 this season and averaged 10,902 fans at their home games
Army--a service academy who has struggled on the gridiron and isn't interested
MAC schools with weak followings and no market value

True, but both look more like a blob of schools and nothing very cohesive or logical, geographically. Why get excited in Birmingham for Marshall, you know? Even if the northern schools were/are insignificant, it at least shows some semblance of an impression if there was just something up there to boot, be it another Ohio school, or Buffalo/Army, etc. Plus, making a conference big enough where schools aren't necessarily seeing each other all the time...that won't help much, either.

It's part of the problem. Balance is good, so is continuity. The pattern is to gravitate toward what's best available. While a conference may want to guard against over-saturation in a relatively condensed geographic area, stretching to places where there's beeen little prior connection, no tradition, differing priorities, plus major travel, cannot be counted on to offer a smooth flow.

Bowls and out-of-conference games were suppose to be where the 'separated' met. Now, 'being almost all over the place' is an accepted concept in the effort to enhance exposure.

The SunBelt, for example, shall have Idaho fb in the same conference with Georgia Southern all-sports. Plug-ins' and stretching are presented as logical decisions to meet needs, while missing a fundamental, yet strategic purpose. It would make sense for Georgia Southern to be playing peers in Florida, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Alabama, and in Louisiana and Kentucky, fine too, wherever the closer peer-type institutions may be. Georgia Southern vs Arkansas State, looks and sounds good as frequent. Georgia Southern vs anybody beyond that as yearly competition; why should such be needed or desired?

A conference having 2 divisions in completely separate regions is not an assurance of overall continuity. Even the 2 divisions of the 14 members each in the B1G and SEC have traditions and considerable continuity carried-over into it, and the regionalism involved have clear and mostly crisp concepts of purpose.

We're talking about sports programs (AAC, CUSA, SunBelt, etc.) with very limited budgets and why deprive fans that like to follow? These lower-profile conferences are not going to get oodles of money out of the TV quests. Regionalism with rivalry intensity need not be sacrificed.

The current CUSA is basically the old sun belt.
This is hardly a group to look at to improve the AAC.

Army joining with Navy increases the tv worth of the AAC.

The goal of the AAC is to be a superior conference to the MWC.

The addition of sun belt now cusa schools will not help.

A stronger eastern and northern division with likes of UMASS will certainly help.

UMass does absolutely nothing to help the AAC and will not have a serious case for consideration in the AAC until they are averaging 30,000 fans at their home games and regularly winning or at least in the hunt for MAC titles (or Sunbelt titles if the MAC kicks them out). I'm going to call a spade a spade here--they are an FCS upgrade with meager attendance and meager fan support in a region that is reliant upon out-of-state talent and a television market that is saturated by professional sports and their two closest FBS neighbors, UConn and Boston College, want nothing to do with them.

UMASS is the flagship state university of MASS.
It has a reason and basis for growth.
BC is in the ACC and has nothing to do with a lot of major schools in the northeast.
As far as BC time in the ACC its sports program has not grown.
UCONN thinks they should have been in the ACC but they are not.
UCONN thinks they should be an AAU school,but they are not.
UCONN thinks they can rejoin the new BE for all sports but. football.
UCONN thinks they can play an independent football schedule and be like ND and BYU.
UCONN valuation of themselves is not accepted by the academic world or college sports world.
Having two major state universities uCONN and UMASS is good thing for the AAC.

I think you missed my point entirely. UMass MIGHT have some potential but they have proved absolutely nothing. There is no sense in adding them pre-maturely; the AAC does not need developmental projects--they need programs ready to contend who have some clout in their media market. The AAC, formerly Big East football, has transformed into a primarily southern conference so there is little point in adding a New England program especially a weak one. The AAC will only keep a flag in New England until the next major realignment occurs and they lose UConn; then it will be time to pack up and leave the region.

Yes UConn feels incredibly slighted right now and they should be, but that has little bearing on UMass's future or the overall direction that the AAC will take as a conference.

AAC if continues to grow with CUSA(old sun belt) will be a conference that will not exceed the MWC.The AAC next new member will football only Navy.That will make 12 schools.Army would be another football only school.UMASS clearly wants into the AAC.Northern schools in AAC are Temple,Uconn,UCinn and Navy.The north/eastern group needs to strengthen.The AAC does need to a third rate southern conference(SEC and ACC)