Aresco: We are losing multiple schools | Page 5 | The Boneyard

Aresco: We are losing multiple schools

Status
Not open for further replies.
huskymedic said:
Really... posting articles from May here?? Ancient history on this board.
Expand ...

The CSU piece was posted to inform to what extent the Rams have gone to pitch themselves to the Big 12.
I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

You might want to tone down the sarcasm and critical nature of your postings. I know you think of yourself as the most informed Husky with the Hot Wheels and all but you really come off as a wise guy most of the time.

Here is a more timely one.

Dick Harmon: Critical vision of Oklahoma's Boren has put BYU in crosshairs of Big 12 expansion plans
 
Last edited:
Confident Carl said:
The CSU piece was posted to inform to what extent the Rams have gone to pitch themselves to the Big 12.
I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

You might want to tone down the sarcasm and critical nature of your postings. I know you think of yourself as the most informed Husky with the Hot Wheels and all but you really come off as a wise guy most of the time.

Here is a more timely one.

Dick Harmon: Critical vision of Oklahoma's Boren has put BYU in crosshairs of Big 12 expansion plans
Expand ...
Pretty sure you should change your handle at this point.
 
Here are my takes on this thread:

1) The Aresco quote implying that multiple schools are leaving the conference is GREAT news for us, not bad news. It means we won't get scooped by a geographically more favorable Cincy or a politically more favorable Houston solely, and I can't imagine that there is more than 1 school outside of the AAC conference that the Big12 wants (BYU only).

2) If Aresco's information is accurate, this almost certainly means that the conference is expanding by 4. The 4 team expansion, as viewed by almost everyone on this board as well as in the media, includes UConn.

3) Taking UConn for "football only" and leaving our other gigantic, dominant sports programs out is like inviting Kim Kardashian to a party where everyone is attracted to ladies with small butts. Why on earth would you do that???

I'm still sticking to my original premise that UConn and BYU are in, since the move was almost certainly initiated by TV money from the recent ACC deal. There is no other available school that will deliver more tv money than those two. I've been kicked in the nuts multiple times over the last 15 years by this conference nonsense, but I am feeling oddly confident about this one... :cool:
 
UConnDan97 said:
Here are my takes on this thread:

1) The Aresco quote implying that multiple schools are leaving the conference is GREAT news for us, not bad news. It means we won't get scooped by a geographically more favorable Cincy or a politically more favorable Houston solely, and I can't imagine that there is more than 1 school outside of the AAC conference that the Big12 wants (BYU only).

2) If Aresco's information is accurate, this almost certainly means that the conference is expanding by 4. The 4 team expansion, as viewed by almost everyone on this board as well as in the media, includes UConn.

3) Taking UConn for "football only" and leaving our other gigantic, dominant sports programs out is like inviting Kim Kardashian to a party where everyone is attracted to ladies with small butts. Why on earth would you do that???

I'm still sticking to my original premise that UConn and BYU are in, since the move was almost certainly initiated by TV money from the recent ACC deal. There is no other available school that will deliver more tv money than those two. I've been kicked in the nuts multiple times over the last 15 years by this conference nonsense, but I am feeling oddly confident about this one... :cool:
Expand ...
This is really about the pro rata clause to milk every last dime out their contract. I don't blame them. If they expanded by 4, I'm sure the existing schools could split the payout of 2 schools and the newcomers the payout of 2 schools. Everyone wins.

Now, if they are thinking of a non traditional network i.e streaming I think us and BYU become critical adds. But what do I know.
 
.-.
Last edited:
UConnDan97 said:
If your talking about the Kardashian comment, I prefer to think of it as a simile... :eek:
Expand ...

Well, I'm going to get pedantic on your butt. All similes are metaphors. A simile is a metaphor.
 
upstater said:
Well, I'm going to get pedantic on your butt. All similes are metaphors. A simile is a metaphor.
Expand ...

I'm aware that all similes are metaphors. That's why I typed "I prefer to think of it as...". I went to UConn, you know... :p
 
UConnDan97 said:
2) If Aresco's information is accurate, this almost certainly means that the conference is expanding by 4. The 4 team expansion, as viewed by almost everyone on this board as well as in the media, includes UConn.

While most people on this board have us included in a 4 team expansion (as one would expect on a UConn board), I'm not at all sure that most in the media have anointed us as the 4th team. There has been plentiful media speculation where we aren't even mentioned in a 4 team expansion. Memphis, CSU, USF, UCF, ECU and even Temple are frequently mentioned as 4th teams to go along with BYU, Houston and Cincy who appear to be the media favorites.
Expand ...
 

No offense, but find me a reputable media outlet that has ECU or Temple in their top 4 for expansion. If there is one out there, they have lost whatever remaining reputation they may have had... :rolleyes:
 
UConnDan97 said:
Here are my takes on this thread:

1) The Aresco quote implying that multiple schools are leaving the conference is GREAT news for us, not bad news. It means we won't get scooped by a geographically more favorable Cincy or a politically more favorable Houston solely, and I can't imagine that there is more than 1 school outside of the AAC conference that the Big12 wants (BYU only).

2) If Aresco's information is accurate, this almost certainly means that the conference is expanding by 4. The 4 team expansion, as viewed by almost everyone on this board as well as in the media, includes UConn.

3) Taking UConn for "football only" and leaving our other gigantic, dominant sports programs out is like inviting Kim Kardashian to a party where everyone is attracted to ladies with small butts. Why on earth would you do that???

I'm still sticking to my original premise that UConn and BYU are in, since the move was almost certainly initiated by TV money from the recent ACC deal. There is no other available school that will deliver more tv money than those two. I've been kicked in the nuts multiple times over the last 15 years by this conference nonsense, but I am feeling oddly confident about this one... :cool:
Expand ...

Agree with #2 and #3, but I think the fact that multiple schools are leaving the AAC doesn't indicate anything one way or another about us.

If there is a football-only element, I wouldn't be surprised to see BYU and CSU/Boise as football-only (limits Mountain travel to only a few games a year), with Cincy and Houston/Memphis for all sports.

Any kind of a football-only move is bad news for us, but 4 schools seems to be likely and that is better news for us than 2 schools.
 
.-.
UConnDan97 said:
Here are my takes on this thread:

1) The Aresco quote implying that multiple schools are leaving the conference is GREAT news for us, not bad news. It means we won't get scooped by a geographically more favorable Cincy or a politically more favorable Houston solely, and I can't imagine that there is more than 1 school outside of the AAC conference that the Big12 wants (BYU only).

2) If Aresco's information is accurate, this almost certainly means that the conference is expanding by 4. The 4 team expansion, as viewed by almost everyone on this board as well as in the media, includes UConn.

3) Taking UConn for "football only" and leaving our other gigantic, dominant sports programs out is like inviting Kim Kardashian to a party where everyone is attracted to ladies with small butts. Why on earth would you do that???

I'm still sticking to my original premise that UConn and BYU are in, since the move was almost certainly initiated by TV money from the recent ACC deal. There is no other available school that will deliver more tv money than those two. I've been kicked in the nuts multiple times over the last 15 years by this conference nonsense, but I am feeling oddly confident about this one... :cool:
Expand ...
You 13 -0 predicting bastard. Don't bring that optimism to CR. We are Doomed and we know it.

So just stop it, Dan!
;)
 
UConnDan97 said:
No offense, but find me a reputable media outlet that has ECU or Temple in their top 4 for expansion. If there is one out there, they have lost whatever remaining reputation they may have had... :rolleyes:
Expand ...

I'm having trouble finding the list of "reputable" media outlets.
 
gopher2 said:
I'm having trouble finding the list of "reputable" media outlets.
Expand ...

Here's a simple test that can help you narrow your search:

1) Does the company employ less than 4 people?
2) Is the company located in someone's basement?
3) Does the company originate from West Virginia?

If the answers to that questionnaire aren't "no, no, no", then you should keep looking... ;)

Temple and ECU....honestly...
 
uconnphil2016 said:
I really don't think Aresco knows the outcome for sure. Probably has an idea, but I really doubt anyone knows yet, perhaps even the big xii hasn't made up its mind yet. In any case, the idea of having multiple aac teams leave is good for us. I doubt expansion would be just two teams, which means it's likely four. Football only is obviously BYU, and I have trouble believing Boise state could get in. I really think it's three American teams and BYU football only.
Expand ...
No way. Everyone knows. This is the biggest decision for the Big12 and AAC: the lives of both conferences will be impacted. They know. It is only a matter of letter us know. This sucks!
 
uconnphil2016 said:
I really don't think Aresco knows the outcome for sure. Probably has an idea, but I really doubt anyone knows yet, perhaps even the big xii hasn't made up its mind yet. In any case, the idea of having multiple aac teams leave is good for us. I doubt expansion would be just two teams, which means it's likely four. Football only is obviously BYU, and I have trouble believing Boise state could get in. I really think it's three American teams and BYU football only.
Expand ...

There seems to be some concensus here that the football-only is referring to BYU. I would just like to interject that the current feeling among BYU fans is different than this. Many of us would be shocked if it does not include men's and women's basketball as well, and many of us are all-but-expecting it to be all sports, though none of us dare say with any certainty. We also tend to think that the Sunday issue is a bigger issue among sportswriters and laypeople than it is in reality. Does it really make sense to halt or alter a deal of this magnitude because the softball team et al. might have a bit of a headache scheduling one or two of their games a year, while the revenue generating sports would require virtually no change, all at the expense of an athletic program that is currently ranked in the 20's in the director's cup (usually in the 40's) and media capabilities that are perhaps unrivaled? Neither would it make sense to us to want UCONN as football-only without your premier basketball programs and other sports.

We've been shocked before (1996 & 2011), but most of us are taking the football-only chatter as an inference to prospects such as Boise State, perhaps, or those like them, who have been stellar in their football reputation recently, but otherwise have little-to-nothing to offer in regards to basketball, Olympic sports, academics, or market size. Anyway, we may all find out soon enough. I never thought I'd be that interested in AAC media days.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it the 'no Sunday' issue is only a problem for the men's conference basketball tournament (which would be a significant component of the television contract. What happens if the tournament championship game remains a Sunday, nationally televised event?
 
.-.
I'm struggling to understand BYU's value. The athletics are awful if you look at last 10-15 years. School decent. Does the B12 want the Provo and LDS market so they can fast monthly?

'dweller said:
There seems to be some concensus here that the football-only is referring to BYU. I would just like to interject that the current feeling among BYU fans is different than this. Many of us would be shocked if it does not include men's and women's basketball as well, and many of us are all-but-expecting it to be all sports, though none of us dare say with any certainty. We also tend to think that the Sunday issue is a bigger issue among sportswriters and laypeople than it is in reality. Does it really make sense to halt or alter a deal of this magnitude because the softball team et al. might have a bit of a headache scheduling one or two of their games a year, while the revenue generating sports would require virtually no change, all at the expense of an athletic program that is currently ranked in the 20's in the director's cup (usually in the 40's) and media capabilities that are perhaps unrivaled? Neither would it make sense to us to want UCONN as football-only without your premier basketball programs and other sports.

We've been shocked before (1996 & 2011), but most of us are taking the football-only chatter as an inference to prospects such as Boise State, perhaps, or those like them, who have been stellar in their football reputation recently, but otherwise have little-to-nothing to offer in regards to basketball, Olympic sports, academics, or market size. Anyway, we may all find out soon enough. I never thought I'd be that interested in AAC media days.
Expand ...
 
FfldCntyFan said:
The way I see it the 'no Sunday' issue is only a problem for the men's conference basketball tournament (which would be a significant component of the television contract. What happens if the tournament championship game remains a Sunday, nationally televised event?
Expand ...

I believe the 2016 tournament was Wednesday through Saturday. I don't know about future tournament dates, but that would definitely be something that has been discussed and would have to be negotiated in a contract. It seems a small sticking point to me in comparison to what we otherwise offer, and I can only hope the President's see it the same way. The NCAA has always been generous in accommodating us in their tournament (although we like to think it has perhaps bumped our seeding back a notch or two from time to time), and it seems to me that a conference could easily follow suit.
 
'dweller said:
There seems to be some concensus here that the football-only is referring to BYU. I would just like to interject that the current feeling among BYU fans is different than this. Many of us would be shocked if it does not include men's and women's basketball as well, and many of us are all-but-expecting it to be all sports, though none of us dare say with any certainty. We also tend to think that the Sunday issue is a bigger issue among sportswriters and laypeople than it is in reality. Does it really make sense to halt or alter a deal of this magnitude because the softball team et al. might have a bit of a headache scheduling one or two of their games a year, while the revenue generating sports would require virtually no change, all at the expense of an athletic program that is currently ranked in the 20's in the director's cup (usually in the 40's) and media capabilities that are perhaps unrivaled? Neither would it make sense to us to want UCONN as football-only without your premier basketball programs and other sports.

We've been shocked before (1996 & 2011), but most of us are taking the football-only chatter as an inference to prospects such as Boise State, perhaps, or those like them, who have been stellar in their football reputation recently, but otherwise have little-to-nothing to offer in regards to basketball, Olympic sports, academics, or market size. Anyway, we may all find out soon enough. I never thought I'd be that interested in AAC media days.
Expand ...
Neither did we expect to be interested in the Newport Clambake unless it's to complain about lavishing the media with our hard earned cash.
We never asked to be in this conference . We joined a great pretty local conference 30 yesrs ago ,with teams we had experience and pretty much hate. We actually never left that conference.
The next thing we know we're surrounded by strangers in a something called the Ametican.
Its like a bad dream
 
.-.
JSM1970 said:
I'm struggling to understand BYU's value. The athletics are awful if you look at last 10-15 years. School decent. Does the B12 want the Provo and LDS market so they can fast monthly?
Expand ...

Cheeky, but in comparison to some of the other candidates in the conversation (Memphis, UCF, Boise, etc.) you can just call us the Stanford of the... (East?)

No, when it comes to overall athletics and academics, neither of our respective schools are Stanford, or even all that close. But both of our schools/athletics are far closer to them than any of the other schools available.
 
“Whatever happens, we’ll have most of our high-achieving teams still here,” Aresco says. “It’s been a good top-to-bottom league. … We’ll get right back to building up the league.”
 
AZHuskiePop said:
Neither did we expect to be interested in the Newport Clambake unless it's to complain about lavishing the media with our hard earned cash.
We never asked to be in this conference . We joined a great pretty local conference 30 yesrs ago ,with teams we had experience and pretty much hate. We actually never left that conference.
The next thing we know we're surrounded by strangers in a something called the Ametican.
Its like a bad dream
Expand ...

I think we can somewhat empathize with your position, being estranged from our more traditional rivals ourselves. The fact that we're talking about being potential conference mates-- and hoping for it-- is kind of ridiculous on its face.
 
Has anyone ever reported that non Texas schools were on board for Houston?

Or did everyone just assume because Texas said "they wanted" Houston, it was a given.

I liked the theory floated early on that Texas said yes just for show, knowing Houston couldn't get enough votes.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,349
Messages
4,566,420
Members
10,468
Latest member
ADD3LA


Top Bottom