Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

Talks ended because one or more of these statements are true.

1. The two schools said no way are we humping that far to play for that amount of money.

2. The AAC membership said no way are we humping that far to play for that amount of money.

Don't be using common sense here.....we want a replacement!  Lol.

  • Upvote 1
  • Lovely Take 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Not unless Aresco changes his model of a team in/near large markets. 

Exactly.

Does AAC have to expand? Nope. 13 teams in an environment where divisions aren't needed isn't a problem.

If you look at the "we want markets" approach, choices boil down to:
Buffalo, NIU (sort of, rural by Chicago TV market), Bowling Green (sort of, rural but in Indianapolis market), Georgia State, Kennesaw State, Texas State (sort of, technically Austin TV market), Louisiana (ECU sized market smack dab between Tulane and Rice which as a larger public makes them probably a no vote for Tulane and Rice), UTEP, FIU, and Army. Doesn't fit but easy to get UMass.

UMass is cheapest get, followed by CUSA and MAC schools at around $5 million. Think SBC buy out is $6 million.

Who would knock their mamma down to join? UMass, Texas State, UTEP, La.Tech, WKU, MTSU, FIU, maybe Georgia State. Maybe Louisiana. 

Would others join yeah but there is a difference between jumping up and down yelling pick me and yeah we looked at the numbers, it works.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, C Rod said:

 

"We plan to focus any expansion efforts on schools that allow for sensible and sustainable competition and student-athlete well-being within our strong geographic footprint" 

They wanted to much $$$?

  • Upvote 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, VideoEagle said:

If LaTech wasn't good enough for SunBelt, why would they be good enough for the AAC? They move "the needle" the wrong way in terms of market, financial strength, and growth potential. The thought that LaTech is a replacement for SMU is rediculous unless the only criteria is a team with red and blue as their colors. 

 

You been to the La.Tech board... ever? They can more than pick up SMU's slack. 🙂

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 3
  • Eye Roll 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, C Rod said:

"We plan to focus any expansion efforts on schools that allow for sensible and sustainable competition and student-athlete well-being within our strong geographic footprint" 

Is there a place any more for "sensible" in college football?

Every new development is crazier than the last. Deion has 86 new players including 53 incoming transfers at CU.

  • Upvote 2
  • Lovely Take 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Aquila_Viridis said:

This conference should shed members, not add them.

I am not sure who we would consider shedding, unless we want to look in the mirror. We have no right as a university or alum base to throw rocks as we are certainly standing in a glass house. 

Army

App St

JMU

Liberty

We should add any of the 4, in that order. If we want to get to an even number, then 18 is the number. I would say for a fifth member added, I am not sure who that would be given MWC is off the table now. Maybe give Coastal a look? Either way, we should certainly take interest in wanting to weaken the Belt while strengthening the AAC. 

  • Upvote 4
Posted
1 hour ago, ColoradoEagle said:

This...I actually doubt. It doesn't really fit their geographic footprint, and I think all of this realignment news pointed out how that conference basically holds its schools hostage. Unless the AAC was on its deathbed, I can't imagine any current schools leaving for the MWC.

If OrSt and Wazzou join the MWC and they come to Denton and show interest in us, it would be in our best interest to accept their invitation. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
  • Puking Eagle 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

I am not sure who we would consider shedding, unless we want to look in the mirror. We have no right as a university or alum base to throw rocks as we are certainly standing in a glass house. 

Army

App St

JMU

Liberty

We should add any of the 4, in that order. If we want to get to an even number, then 18 is the number. I would say for a fifth member added, I am not sure who that would be given MWC is off the table now. Maybe give Coastal a look? Either way, we should certainly take interest in wanting to weaken the Belt while strengthening the AAC. 

Liberty is the most worthy of those if you look at facilities and budget.

  • Sad 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dannymacfan said:

This is a major setback.  Now this breathes new life into the Mountain West.  Sad day for the AAC and UNT.

Bill Nye Reaction GIF by NETFLIX

  • Upvote 3
Posted (edited)

I don't actually think Oregon State and Washington State really make the MWC that much stronger. I think people are way overhyping those two programs. They don't add national exposure for the MWC. I can't imagine very many people in Gainesville or Miami staying up to watch WSU vs. SDSU.

The further they are removed from the PAC, the more "regular MWC school" they will become.

Edited by DentonLurker
  • Upvote 2
  • Confused 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, mgfan said:

Only acceptable team is Army. 

They have stated several times that they are not interested in a football conference and prefer an independent schedule. However, that could change. U Conn for football only?

  • Upvote 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

Exactly.

Does AAC have to expand? Nope. 13 teams in an environment where divisions aren't needed isn't a problem.

If you look at the "we want markets" approach, choices boil down to:
Buffalo, NIU (sort of, rural by Chicago TV market), Bowling Green (sort of, rural but in Indianapolis market), Georgia State, Kennesaw State, Texas State (sort of, technically Austin TV market), Louisiana (ECU sized market smack dab between Tulane and Rice which as a larger public makes them probably a no vote for Tulane and Rice), UTEP, FIU, and Army. Doesn't fit but easy to get UMass.

UMass is cheapest get, followed by CUSA and MAC schools at around $5 million. Think SBC buy out is $6 million.

Who would knock their mamma down to join? UMass, Texas State, UTEP, La.Tech, WKU, MTSU, FIU, maybe Georgia State. Maybe Louisiana. 

Would others join yeah but there is a difference between jumping up and down yelling pick me and yeah we looked at the numbers, it works.

Wasn't U Mass kicked out of the MAC for not investing in their athletic program? And please, no more Texas or Florida schools. WK and MTSU were invited into the MAC when CUSA imploded . WK wanted to go,MTSU didn't .

  • Upvote 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, wardly said:

They have stated several times that they are not interested in a football conference and prefer an independent schedule. However, that could change. U Conn for football only?

If I had my way knowing Army is not interested I would go get Liberty, App State, and JMU right now. Get the league to 16 teams and go from there. Those are 2 very high investing programs across all sports and a program that manifests and then permeates success from within. That makes the AAC stronger with those 3. 

  • Upvote 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, wardly said:

Wasn't U Mass kicked out of the MAC for not investing in their athletic program? And please, no more Texas or Florida schools. WK and MTSU were invited into the MAC when CUSA imploded . WK wanted to go,MTSU didn't .

I would expect Aresco to stick with schools committed to investing and near significant markets. I could see an outside possibility of Texas State if Aresco wants to keep the MWC out of Texas. App State or Louisiana Lafayette would be good targets if he goes in a different direction.

It will be interesting to see how many players/commits WSU and OSU lose after these changes. They are not recruiting gang busters, but you would think this will have an impact. 

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, wardly said:

WK wanted to go,MTSU didn't .

My understanding is both wanted to go, but MTSU didn't have the money for the exit fee. The MAC wanted both or none, so it was none. I think this will add to the existing dislike between WK and MTSU! 

Posted
30 minutes ago, wardly said:

Wasn't U Mass kicked out of the MAC for not investing in their athletic program? And please, no more Texas or Florida schools. WK and MTSU were invited into the MAC when CUSA imploded . WK wanted to go,MTSU didn't .

No MAC exercised option in the agreement where they invited UMass as a full member, if they declined, automatic kick out.

MAC only invited UMass to balance out football only Temple. Once the Owls left, MAC had no interest in a football only UMass. All or nothing. UMass opted for nothing over playing basketball in the MAC.

  • Upvote 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Wow $30m payout to $5m payout and still stuck in a regional conference the MWC!

They'll get more than $5 million in the next contract and they won't have to play any 9am local time games in Charlotte. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Eye Roll 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I would expect Aresco to stick with schools committed to investing and near significant markets. I could see an outside possibility of Texas State if Aresco wants to keep the MWC out of Texas. App State or Louisiana Lafayette would be good targets if he goes in a different direction.

It will be interesting to see how many players/commits WSU and OSU lose after these changes. They are not recruiting gang busters, but you would think this will have an impact. 

 

MWC isn't coming to Texas. They have a nice tidy 14. If they do anything it will be make another run at Gonzaga now that Washington State is in.

  • Upvote 2
  • Lovely Take 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.