Why the American Athletic Conference Is Doomed from the Start

[Harry]

Today marks the official start of the American Athletic Conference as a successor to the Big East in football and other sports.

Of the eight teams that played in the first Big East football season in 1991, only Temple will remain, and that’s a Temple program that was banished to the MAC for a spell and has played in one bowl game in the past 30 years. Most of the other teams are former mid-majors from Conference USA or former independents or I-AA schools.

I’m sorry, but this conference is doomed, and there are several reasons why.

One is that, after 2013, the American Athletic loses its automatic BCS bid.

Recent history has told us that the Mountain West champion, and even the MAC champion, often outperformed the Big East champ in the BCS standings. And remember, that’s the

Big East with West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville, all of whom have either left or are poised to leave in the coming seasons.

The chances of the American Athletic, as constituted, landing a team in the Final Four of the college football playoff that begins in 2014 seem minuscule at best.

Another threat to the viability of this conference is that the power conferences probably aren't done raiding yet. The ACC will want to get up to 16, while the Big 12 will actually want to get to 12, so it can stage a nationally televised championship game like the other four power conferences.

While it's true that they could go after some western programs such as Boise State or BYU, the most likely targets seem to be teams from this conference.

Read more: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1581656-why-the-american-athletic-conference-is-doomed-from-the-start

[NTXCoog]

Typical BR brilliant reporting. AAC is a collection of leftover schools and some other conference may take some of their members so the rest will fall back into CUSA. Hasn't the AAC already had schools taken? And what happened? They took schools from CUSA, not the other way around.

And CUSA is just as much a collection of leftovers that have little in common. You have schools with long histories. You have schools that have never played a single down of FBS level football. You have schools that have been ranked recently. You have schools that are perennial bottom feeders. You have schools from FBS, FCS, CUSA, Sunbelt, WAC, etc.

[Harry]

Not taking a side Coog but the problem with starting a NEW conference is you are starting a NEW conference and the less informed will take time to digest what has transpired. The answer is win...winning cures everything. I will say this, the AAC lost a LOT when they gave up the Big East name. I hope that you guys were compensated well for that. I'm pulling for Houston to get the BCS slot this year BTW...good luck to you.

[LakeTravis]

Bleacher Report was doomed from the beginning

[Mean Green 93-98]

They will never be on a level with the ACC, but "doomed" is ridiculous. I wouldn't mind being in that conference.

[Wag Tag]

Difference in AAC and C USA is regional competition. If you are not going to hit the home run on the TV then u better fill your stadium !

[NTXCoog]

Difference in AAC and C USA is regional competition. If you are not going to hit the home run on the TV then u better fill your stadium !

I don't see much difference in regions between the 2 conferences. Both of them are pretty spread out. But I believe the longest distance between schools is actually on CUSA's side. From UTEP to ODU is about 2000 miles. From UH to UConn is 1700 miles. For us western schools, we have 2 schools in TX, 1 in OK, and 1 in LA. You may throw Memphis in that group as well. Not sure how the divisions will work out in 2015 when all of the schools are added, but that's not too wide of a spread.

[JesseMartin]

"Rapport"="report". This is a pretty major online sports journal. Can't they afford editors?

[NTXCoog]

"Rapport"="report". This is a pretty major online sports journal. Can't they afford editors?

Are you not familiar with Bleacher Report? Wasn't Fouts listed in their ranking of FBS stadiums last season?

[ragpicker]

Thanks for the info, Harry. Incidentally, did anyone see the big write up on SMU and The AAC in todays DMN? WE need coverage like that in Dallas. We are a much larger university with far more alums in The DFW area and yet we get very little coverage in the two major area newspapers. Does anyone have any ideas about what we can do about that? I know, we must win, but the mustangs are not exactly setting the woods on fire either.

[JesseMartin]

Are you not familiar with Bleacher Report? Wasn't Fouts listed in their ranking of FBS stadiums last season?

It's one thing that they barely pay attention to us, but even if they aren't very thorough in their research, the language is still the same. If the editors can't be bothered to ensure accurate reporting outside of the power conferences, that's bad enough, but you can still read the body of the text to see if there are any errors.

[Mean Green 93-98]

It's one thing that they barely pay attention to us, but even if they aren't very thorough in their research, the language is still the same. If the editors can't be bothered to ensure accurate reporting outside of the power conferences, that's bad enough, but you can still read the body of the text to see if there are any errors.

The point of Bleacher Report is that it is not written by professional writers, but by countless "fans"--hence the name. And I don't think that a whole lot of editing goes on there.

[JesseMartin]

Ah, that I didn't know. I don't look at it often enough (possibly a good thing). I thought they were "contributing writer" types. Even more reason to not bother checking it out regularly...

[untjim1995]

Thanks for the info, Harry. Incidentally, did anyone see the big write up on SMU and The AAC in todays DMN? WE need coverage like that in Dallas. We are a much larger university with far more alums in The DFW area and yet we get very little coverage in the two major area newspapers. Does anyone have any ideas about what we can do about that? I know, we must win, but the mustangs are not exactly setting the woods on fire either.

The entire DFW media is driven by two things when it comes to college sports reporting:

1.) Are you in the Big XII or SEC? You get the main coverage, if the answer is yes. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially in Ft. Worth, where TCU is their home town team with lots of civic pride. That's where the majority of alums and fans watch college football in these parts, anyway.

2.)If you aren't in the two major regional conferences, were you ever in the SWC? If yes, then you'll get coverage because you have tradition and still have older alums who still read newspapers. TCU was this way before getting into the Big XII. SMU gets great coverage from the DMN since its there in town. I'm fairly certain UH and Rice get decent coverage in the Houston Chronicle, too. Would they all like more? Sure, but the AQs with big enrollments, alumni, and fanbases in the region will always get more.

Then you get to North Texas. If you are a sports journalist in this area, all you have ever seen is North Texas flail athletically. And, even worse, you know that the university didn't even care about football enough to play at the top level of college football for 12 years. And when they decided to move back upward, it was a case of putting lipstick on a pig at the worst stadium in the country, joining far-flung conferences full of teams that no one cares about, and always playing the part of the sacrificial lamb against the teams that everyone does follow. We did this to ourselves. We could have done like La Tech or UTEP did and play in conferences with lesser known teams, but still did well enough to stay at the 1-A or get back up to it as fast as possible. Instead, we literally just quit caring. Now that we are finally trying to care about football 35 years later than we should have, its no surprise that we can't get any decent coverage in the DFW media or that we can't get recruits to consider coming here that are highly ranked. Its the ultimate mountain climb and it will be interesting to see if we can pull it off. History says no, but the size of resources availlable here says yes.

[GrandGreen]

The entire DFW media is driven by two things when it comes to college sports reporting:

1.) Are you in the Big XII or SEC? You get the main coverage, if the answer is yes. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially in Ft. Worth, where TCU is their home town team with lots of civic pride. That's where the majority of alums and fans watch college football in these parts, anyway.

2.)If you aren't in the two major regional conferences, were you ever in the SWC? If yes, then you'll get coverage because you have tradition and still have older alums who still read newspapers. TCU was this way before getting into the Big XII. SMU gets great coverage from the DMN since its there in town. I'm fairly certain UH and Rice get decent coverage in the Houston Chronicle, too. Would they all like more? Sure, but the AQs with big enrollments, alumni, and fanbases in the region will always get more.

Then you get to North Texas. If you are a sports journalist in this area, all you have ever seen is North Texas flail athletically. And, even worse, you know that the university didn't even care about football enough to play at the top level of college football for 12 years. And when they decided to move back upward, it was a case of putting lipstick on a pig at the worst stadium in the country, joining far-flung conferences full of teams that no one cares about, and always playing the part of the sacrificial lamb against the teams that everyone does follow. We did this to ourselves. We could have done like La Tech or UTEP did and play in conferences with lesser known teams, but still did well enough to stay at the 1-A or get back up to it as fast as possible. Instead, we literally just quit caring. Now that we are finally trying to care about football 35 years later than we should have, its no surprise that we can't get any decent coverage in the DFW media or that we can't get recruits to consider coming here that are highly ranked. Its the ultimate mountain climb and it will be interesting to see if we can pull it off. History says no, but the size of resources availlable here says yes.

I was with you till the last paragraph. I am not aware of any other conferences choices had other than the Belt other than the WAC when it was falling apart. NT did move way up in facilities, it is hard to make up for decades of neglect quickly. The fall back to 1aa was devastating but again I am not aware of any viable choices NT had at that time. They were not in a conference and didn't meet most of the criteria to remain 1a. I do think they had an administration that welcomed the change thinking they could dominate the lower classification with less of a budget. Something that never happened.

The problem now is that leadership is apparently happy with the staff and the direction that NT is going. I can think of no other reason to give RV an extension, in fact I don't understand that move at all. There is absolutely no pressure on an AD, that isn't going anywhere else anyway, to perform. If the extension did occur as reported, with a horrible hire in MBB and a still questionable one in football plus attendance problems; NT must have some of the lowest standard around.

Edited July 6, 2013 by GrandGreen

[untjim1995]

I hear you on the conference choice, but Tulsa and La Tech made their way without being in any big conference after the i-aa split in the early 80s, but they put resources into the program so that they could stay afloat as a DIvision 1-A program, even as independents. Now, they are doing better than ever.

I cannot agree with you more on the hiring standards here. We care about athletic costs, not athletic success.

[PlummMeanGreen]

I know re-alignment is all about a bunch of "what if's" and jumping on board with schools that some might even perceive are going to be what they once were but will never be (again) at the Go5 level and those schools and their alums know they won't. And worse for a handful of that group who still have Big Time aspirations, the Power of 5 conferences have almost closed its membership for the unforeseeable future.

But for the AAC.........."what if" SMU and UH actually do get a very sweet package from the MWC so they can get into the Texas TV market, ie, such a package too tough for both of those schools to turn down and then they decided "To Go West Young Man? Then what does that do to Tulane and Tulsa who also made very quick decisions to jump to the AAC w/o thinking about that SMU/UH/MWC option which would probably not be available for those 2 schools? Sorta' has them hanging out west from the AAC rest on a very thin limb making those crackling sounds by the second.

The other thread I posted which had a Big 12 Froggie Guy get so pissed had this very MWC scenario for SMU/UH in mind albeit I didn't post that scenario.

Still for those who think re-alignment talk is dead don't be too hasty with such a thought.

And I still see the new CUSA as a long term better situated deal once all the possible conference-jumpings elsewhere play out. The AAC not being done losing members could very well be the moral of this post, matter of fact.

GMG!

Edited July 6, 2013 by PlummMeanGreen

[croatan]

The AAC is probably the most stable of the bunch as it is now clear that any team in Conf USA will jump at the chance to leave and join the AAC if asked to do so.

[PlummMeanGreen]

The AAC is probably the most stable of the bunch as it is now clear that any team in Conf USA will jump at the chance to leave and join the AAC if asked to do so.

And your AAC affiliation is ? ? ? ? ? ?

And how many teams does the AAC need to lose to the MWC and/or ACC before it loses all the splendor you seem this grouping of schools has yet as a group that many outside the AAC will choose to describe as in the next one sentence paragraph? Don't forget: This is an opinion board: You have yours and I have mine.

>>> A One Sentence Paragraph (English grammar teachers are falling out of their chairs all over):

Lets play Jeopardy............AAC: What is the name of a present NCAA Go5 conference with the largest group of "has beens" or that has members which "used to be members in NCAA Power of 5 type conferences but no longer are?"

So to you and yours, croatan, yall just keep on re-arranging your deck chairs on the Good Ship Gang of 5 because for what its worth we all have equal access to whatever the Big Boys are going to allow us to have equal access to and that no matter what some of your schools did 50 years ago. That doesn't matter any more except in someone's dream world of non-realism. Casepoint: When Northern Illinois (who dat'?) went to the Orange Bowl last season did anyone care what UH, SMU, Memphis, Cincinatti and others were doing that same day? Uh..........no, they didn't. And don't forget Boise State who has in the last few years become a better known brand and commodity than most all the schools in the AAC? How badly did Boise State and San Diego State want to stay a member in what would become the AAC? (We're all ears and are waiting for a sensible response to that question). (I do think they stayed longer than TCU did, though, so you have to hand that to them).

What did CUSA membership mean to most of the schools that left it while they were still in it? Did it mean sellouts? (no) Did it mean having a BCS bowl buster? (no) So in that regard, both the new CUSA and AAC are equal, now aren't they? So you just keep on living in your little NCAA fantasy and dream world of just really what ain't happening as you see it as a AAC enthusiast. Key phrase of this post is: Good Ship Gang of 5

GMG!

Edited July 7, 2013 by PlummMeanGreen

[UNT90]

The extension tells me that winning just isn't important at UNT.