Boise St to the AAC?

[husky8273]

isn't BS going to be a football only member? Could we have stayed as a football only member?

 

[UConnJim]

Of course I really dont know much of anything here regarding ESPN and how their numbers are penciling. I'm just wondering aloud if a much more cost disciplined ESPN decides that owning one more piece of the G5 just really isn't necessary in order to keep their supreme position in televised sports. I could be way off, I am just positing the question. The situation is clearly theirs to make. They could easily give a price to the AAC for the expansion and they probably already have.

@Slasher, I agree - I like BYU (national following obviously) and SDS (big market which still maters when placing TV bets)

ESPN+ is doing better than expected attracting subscriber with. ~10.3 million subs today. And, ESPN+ is being added to the Xfinity lineup so you can just click on ESPN+ on your TV and watch all the games. Believe it or not, it would have been easier for out of market customers to watch UConn women’s basketball games on ESPN+ than on SNY.

ESPN+ is bringing in an annual revenue run rate of $500 million and growing fast. In 2 years, you really won’t see much of a difference between ESPN games and ESPN+ games except the announcers and probably the cameras. Streaming is the future for sports.

What does this mean for ESPN and the AAC? Maybe ESPN will have more money to spend on rights than previous thought.

what does this mean

 

[huskymedic]

Harsin got out of MWC before Boise...

 

[Exit 4]

ESPN+ is doing better than expected attracting subscriber with. ~10.3 million subs today. And, ESPN+ is being added to the Xfinity lineup so you can just click on ESPN+ on your TV and watch all the games. Believe it or not, it would have been easier for out of market customers to watch UConn women’s basketball games on ESPN+ than on SNY.

ESPN+ is bringing in an annual revenue run rate of $500 million and growing fast. In 2 years, you really won’t see much of a difference between ESPN games and ESPN+ games except the announcers and probably the cameras. Streaming is the future for sports.

What does this mean for ESPN and the AAC? Maybe ESPN will have more money to spend on rights than previous thought.

what does this mean

The question is where will it plateau....
And what happens with ESPN actually starts putting content on their of national interest.
I dont want to be first mover to the + platform (my team that is). I'll move when they move the good stuff too.

 

[Hoophound]

Harsin got out of MWC before Boise...

That’s the problem with the G5. Can’t keep a good coach. UConn needs to sell out the Rent and pay the coach. If we do that, we’ll get our P5 bid. We are the only school with a recipe to punch our own ticket. Everyone else has to win, sell tickets and pray. We can win our way into the ACC/B1G. Pay for it!!! (I know, with what money?)

Edit: I’m drinking.

 

[Exit 4]

That’s the problem with the G5. Can’t keep a good coach. UConn needs to sell out the Rent and pay the coach. If we do that, we’ll get our P5 bid. We are the only school with a recipe to punch our own ticket. Everyone else has to win, sell tickets and pray. We can win our way into the ACC/B1G. Pay for it!!! (I know, with what money?)

Edit: I’m drinking.

Heavy drinker alert

 

[UC1995]

The longest running joke on P6 teams is that P5 expansion will happen in 2025 involving AAC teams. Any moves will be lateral moves to another conference in the P5. This is why UConn did what they did. Invitations aren’t coming because no one moves the needle, ESPN is slowly dying and the whole college athletic structure is in shambles. Expansion is no longer profitable for these conferences.

 

[Hoophound]

The longest running joke on P6 teams is that P5 expansion will happen in 2025 involving AAC teams. Any moves will be lateral moves to another conference in the P5. This is why UConn did what they did. Invitations aren’t coming because no one moves the needle, ESPN is slowly dying and the whole college athletic structure is in shambles. Expansion is no longer profitable for these conferences.

Nobody beyond about 10 schools in the whole country move the needle. It is more about content and market. When volume of quality content is appreciated, we’ll be of value.

 

[UCFBfan]

ESPN+ is doing better than expected attracting subscriber with. ~10.3 million subs today. And, ESPN+ is being added to the Xfinity lineup so you can just click on ESPN+ on your TV and watch all the games. Believe it or not, it would have been easier for out of market customers to watch UConn women’s basketball games on ESPN+ than on SNY.

ESPN+ is bringing in an annual revenue run rate of $500 million and growing fast. In 2 years, you really won’t see much of a difference between ESPN games and ESPN+ games except the announcers and probably the cameras. Streaming is the future for sports.

What does this mean for ESPN and the AAC? Maybe ESPN will have more money to spend on rights than previous thought.

what does this mean

How much of these numbers are inflated due to the fact that ESPN+ is packaged in with Hulu and Disney+? You can either pay $6.99 for just Disney+ or $12.99 for all 3. My guess is most people go for all three and it's most likely for the Hulu add on, not ESPN+.

Now subscribers are subscribers and Disney was smart to attach ESPN+ to their cash cow that has become Disney+. However, I can't get real excited about ESPN+ being highly successful when it's tied in to an offer with two other highly rated and subscribed to streaming services.

 

[Exit 4]

How much of these numbers are inflated due to the fact that ESPN+ is packaged in with Hulu and Disney+? You can either pay $6.99 for just Disney+ or $12.99 for all 3. My guess is most people go for all three and it's most likely for the Hulu add on, not ESPN+.

Now subscribers are subscribers and Disney was smart to attach ESPN+ to their cash cow that has become Disney+. However, I can't get real excited about ESPN+ being highly successful when it's tied in to an offer with two other highly rated and subscribed to streaming services.

When ESPN has the courage to migrate meaningful content the world expects to find with easy under their ordinary cable package we'll know ESPN+ has truly arrived. It could happen, maybe a decade or two from now in the 5G world were cable is indeed shredded and smart devices have 95% of the screens.

 

[UConnJim]

How much of these numbers are inflated due to the fact that ESPN+ is packaged in with Hulu and Disney+? You can either pay $6.99 for just Disney+ or $12.99 for all 3. My guess is most people go for all three and it's most likely for the Hulu add on, not ESPN+.

Now subscribers are subscribers and Disney was smart to attach ESPN+ to their cash cow that has become Disney+. However, I can't get real excited about ESPN+ being highly successful when it's tied in to an offer with two other highly rated and subscribed to streaming services.

Yes, the bundles are helping ESPN+ gain subs, but consumers are choosing what they want as Disney+ has ~ 74 million subs, Hulu has ~37 million subs, and ESPN+ comes in at 10.3 million subs. The average rev per sub is $4.54 for ESPN+ excluding the pay per view events, so you can see bundling impacts the list price of $5.99.

Remember, ESPN has been successful not because of everyone watching sports, but by their networks being bundled in the cable package which greatly expanded their sub base. If ESPN channels were unbundled from the cable package, they probably would have to charge $50 per month+ to keep revenues flat.

 

[Exit 4]

Remember, ESPN has been successful not because of everyone watching sports, but by their networks being bundled in the cable package which greatly expanded their sub base. If ESPN channels were unbundled from the cable package, they probably would have to charge $50 per month+ to keep revenues flat.

Yes this is the part I think many of us are "remembering" very well. The number of traditional cable households continues to decline and that might actually accelerate in a big way as G5 gears up over the next three years.

 

[UConnJim]

When ESPN has the courage to migrate meaningful content the world expects to find with easy under their ordinary cable package we'll know ESPN+ has truly arrived. It could happen, maybe a decade or two from now in the 5G world were cable is indeed shredded and smart devices have 95% of the screens.

The transition to streaming is happening faster than you think. The cable operators like Comcast know the days of offering a bundle of cable channels to consumers are coming to an end and they are preparing. That is why you can access many of the streaming services from the Xfinity box. Their plan is to offer broadband, which is a much higher margin than offering cable services, and be the software interface for your streaming services which they will be paid for.

As for content, there is lots of content. For colleges, you can watch Big 12 basketball and they have every other conference except the Big East, Big 10, PAC 12, ACC, and SEC, but all but the Big East are putting content on their conference networks. And, they do show MLB (180 games), NHL (180 games), MLS (250 games), PGA golf (50 days), CFL (200 games), as well as college football.

Remember when ESPN3 started and you had to watch games on your computer? Well, Comcast changed that and you can watch the games with one click on your TV. Same thing I can do now with Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Peacock, HBO Max, CBS All Access, DAZN, YouTube,...

One last point. We watched many NFL games on our phones when playing golf this fall. Quality was great.

 

[BlueDogs]

The transition to streaming is happening faster than you think. The cable operators like Comcast know the days of offering a bundle of cable channels to consumers are coming to an end and they are preparing. That is why you can access many of the streaming services from the Xfinity box. Their plan is to offer broadband, which is a much higher margin than offering cable services, and be the software interface for your streaming services which they will be paid for.

As for content, there is lots of content. For colleges, you can watch Big 12 basketball and they have every other conference except the Big East, Big 10, PAC 12, ACC, and SEC, but all but the Big East are putting content on their conference networks. And, they do show MLB (180 games), NHL (180 games), MLS (250 games), PGA golf (50 days), CFL (200 games), as well as college football.

Remember when ESPN3 started and you had to watch games on your computer? Well, Comcast changed that and you can watch the games with one click on your TV. Same thing I can do now with Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Peacock, HBO Max, CBS All Access, DAZN, YouTube,...

One last point. We watched many NFL games on our phones when playing golf this fall. Quality was great.

Content fragmentation and capture is only going to get worse. Pretty soon you’ll need a Gilligan’s Island Episode 5 app. As much as I like an unbundled environment, the evolving environment is chaotic and likely will cost consumers more, not less, to access the range of premium context desired.

 

[Exit 4]

The transition to streaming is happening faster than you think. The cable operators like Comcast know the days of offering a bundle of cable channels to consumers are coming to an end and they are preparing. That is why you can access many of the streaming services from the Xfinity box. Their plan is to offer broadband, which is a much higher margin than offering cable services, and be the software interface for your streaming services which they will be paid for.

As for content, there is lots of content. For colleges, you can watch Big 12 basketball and they have every other conference except the Big East, Big 10, PAC 12, ACC, and SEC, but all but the Big East are putting content on their conference networks. And, they do show MLB (180 games), NHL (180 games), MLS (250 games), PGA golf (50 days), CFL (200 games), as well as college football.

Remember when ESPN3 started and you had to watch games on your computer? Well, Comcast changed that and you can watch the games with one click on your TV. Same thing I can do now with Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Peacock, HBO Max, CBS All Access, DAZN, YouTube,...

One last point. We watched many NFL games on our phones when playing golf this fall. Quality was great.

Sure- but no one knows if ESPN will come out ahead here in this new model. And yes the transition is happening fast, but looking around there a lot of people who never watched sports in the old model that paid for sports that now are no longer paying for sports and never plan too so under the new model. So now ESPN has to dump that cost on the fewer true sports fans. All this serves to tap the brakes on content pricing unless its for a true household must like the NBA or NFL or marque CF etc.

Wake me when something important is goes to ESPN+.

 

[Drew]

When ESPN has the courage to migrate meaningful content the world expects to find with easy under their ordinary cable package we'll know ESPN+ has truly arrived. It could happen, maybe a decade or two from now in the 5G world were cable is indeed shredded and smart devices have 95% of the screens.

They’re putting 14 SEC football games and 20 SEC basketball games on ESPN+ annually as part of the new deal announced when the CBS package moves over. They already have AAC and Big 12 football/hoops on ESPN+, as well as UFC.

To be honest, I’ve actually enjoyed the ease of using ESPN+ to watch games this fall. Whenever ESPN is able to acquire the RSN ACC games for football and hoops, I’d bet those wind up on ESPN+ as well (already simulcast for streaming on ESPN3 today). Eventually, all ESPN3 content will be folded into + and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the traditional ESPNU cable channel/network disbanded and their shows/content streamed through + (same goes for ESPN Classic and News). Would leave linear broadcasts for ESPN, 2, ABC, ACCN, SECN and the remainder of the networks and corresponding content would go to +.

 

[Exit 4]

They’re putting 14 SEC football games and 20 SEC basketball games on ESPN+ annually as part of the new deal announced when the CBS package moves over. They already have AAC and Big 12 football/hoops on ESPN+, as well as UFC.

To be honest, I’ve actually enjoyed the ease of using ESPN+ to watch games this fall. Whenever ESPN is able to acquire the RSN ACC games for football and hoops, I’d bet those wind up on ESPN+ as well (already simulcast for streaming on ESPN3 today). Eventually, all ESPN3 content will be folded into + and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the traditional ESPNU cable channel/network disbanded and their shows/content streamed through + (same goes for ESPN Classic and News). Would leave linear broadcasts for ESPN, 2, ABC, ACCN, SECN and the remainder of the networks and corresponding content would go to +.

Yeah, but all that stuff is product that still has modest viewership; they haven’t tried moving stuff that should get 2m+ viewers on linear cable. Let’s see them Move a major bowl game, move a major SEC game, move a major NBA game to + and then do it for several years. Of course they are going to experiment, they have too try it. This is all testing.

 

[UCFBfan]

Yeah, but all that stuff is product that still has modest viewership; they haven’t tried moving stuff that should get 2m+ viewers on linear cable. Let’s see them Move a major bowl game, move a major SEC game, move a major NBA game to + and then do it for several years. Of course they are going to experiment, they have too try it. This is all testing.

I agree with you 100% and almost feel like ESPN needs to do this to push people firmly onto ESPN+. Look at what was going to happen if UConn stayed in the AAC and all of the games would be stuck on ESPN+. All of the WBB games would be on there and all of our fans were quickly figuring out how they can get ESPN+ on their TVs. I know I spent hours with my mother-in-law trying to help set up ESPN+ just for a few games last year.

If ESPN forces fans to have to watch a major bowl game on ESPN+, people will do it. If they put major SEC games or all ACC games on ESPN+ (just using as an example, not reality) people will move over to ESPN+.

As long as people can still watch their games on regular cable that they already pay for, they will not fully move to ESPN+ or pay for it. It's still a slow move but if they force fans to move, they will. There will be anger, but people will move over. It's reality.

 

[Exit 4]

Well to be clear, I think ESPN+ and Disney+ are the future of cable bundling so to speak. I just think there will be this transition where they can get maybe 40% of the households - but a sizable portion resists because of price, technology and awareness. Until you have a smart tv this stuff is more hassle than many will tolerate and so getting the second half of households back will take a lot more time, like a decade. Frankly it will happen at the speed they replace their TVs for smart models and upgrade their data packages. In the mean time its the casual drop in fan of sports that will be lost in the + world.

 

[Drew]

Yeah, but all that stuff is product that still has modest viewership; they haven’t tried moving stuff that should get 2m+ viewers on linear cable. Let’s see them Move a major bowl game, move a major SEC game, move a major NBA game to + and then do it for several years. Of course they are going to experiment, they have too try it. This is all testing.

Don’t know why they would move any of what you had listed above to the + as the advertising $$ from those games is critical to ESPN’s operation. But they will continue to add content that makes it worth having the + as part of your streaming subscriptions. Biggest game I can remember was a Big 12 hoops game like a year or two ago with 2 top 15 teams being on +, think it was Baylor and someone.

 

[Exit 4]

Don’t know why they would move any of what you had listed above to the + as the advertising $$ from those games is critical to ESPN’s operation. But they will continue to add content that makes it worth having the + as part of your streaming subscriptions. Biggest game I can remember was a Big 12 hoops game like a year or two ago with 2 top 15 teams being on +, think it was Baylor and someone.

Yeah, well that is my point. ESPN+ will be positioned as it can be for the short term, a place to dump peripheral product for the super fan and in the process it will narrow rather than expand the audience for said product as the causal fan will just fail to find it as they scroll through their programming guide. And yes, the cable services over time will integrate ESPN+ into their platform so that the scroller is teased by the channel and so over time it will get easier to use. This is all going to play out and under these circumstances circling back to Boise State, do you really need to pay any sort of coin for Boise St as an add to the AAC when the existing AAC deal already gets you a good range of markets and content? Again, the AAC is programming filler (it doesnt move the needle much), there is no other way to view it when ESPN is spending so much more on the SEC, ACC, NBA and NFL. IDK - I'm just saying BoiseSt/to the AAC might not be the slam dunk this question was 10 years ago for ESPN.

 

[Exit 4]

Speaking of programming. I vowed to never watch the B1G network....yet I find myself watching their CFB broadcasts frequently and I just might catch a bit of BB this winter. Why? Well for starters its right there in my cable package positioned next to all my other sports channels so its very easy to find.

 

[Drew]

Yeah, well that is my point. ESPN+ will be positioned as it can be for the short term, a place to dump peripheral product for the super fan and in the process it will narrow rather than expand the audience for said product as the causal fan will just fail to find it as they scroll through their programming guide. And yes, the cable services over time will integrate ESPN+ into their platform so that the scroller is teased by the channel and so over time it will get easier to use. This is all going to play out and under these circumstances circling back to Boise State, do you really need to pay any sort of coin for Boise St as an add to the AAC when the existing AAC deal already gets you a good range of markets and content? Again, the AAC is programming filler (it doesnt move the needle much), there is no other way to view it when ESPN is spending so much more on the SEC, ACC, NBA and NFL. IDK - I'm just saying BoiseSt/to the AAC might not be the slam dunk this question was 10 years ago for ESPN.

Specifically as it relates to Boise- no ESPN doesn't have to pony up anything extra unless there is a pro-rata clause in the new deal. The only reason I'd add a 12th football team if I'm the American is because your waiver to play a title game with 11 ends after this upcoming season in 2021. Assuming that waiver doesn't get extended, they'll have to bring in somebody because I'd imagine the conference title game is an important part of the TV deal.

Adding Boise gives you the West/East splits of:

Boise
Houston
Memphis (Or Tulane)
Navy
SMU
Tulsa

Cincinnati
ECU
Temple
Tulane (or Memphis)
UCF
USF

The other thing is for TV windows... does adding Boise mean any AAC game played there can be used in the 10:30 ESPN/2 slots? Opening another window to have UCF @ Boise, Cinci @ Boise, Memphis @ Boise, etc be played "After Dark" may be interesting for both sides. Also.. does the AAC solely focus on wanting a football only school to add at this point? Or would they be open to the right team joining for all sports?

Another thing... I really don't know what Boise's long term football outlook/potential is. They're sort of stuck in this weird no mans land, they're clearly the king football brand of the MWC but there are no other "brand" type teams to make any of the matchups compelling. If it was similar to the old WAC and TCU/Utah were still there plus BYU in the league then you'd have something... reality is even with a team like SJSU being great and winning the league this year the "branding" for those games stinks. As mentioned above, Boise recruits a TON of guys from California that are on shaky academic grounds and also dips into Texas regularly. What impact would joining the league have on their California recruiting base? And if Boise drops off even to the point where they are competitive but no longer a threat to make a NY6 game, sending teams like ECU, Temple, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane, and Cincinnati as far as 2600 miles to Idaho to play an average college football team potentially in the snow with a game ending around 1:30am ET doesn't sound that great.

The other candidates for the 12th member for the AAC that I think are at least somewhat realistic are:

JMU: Great football, ready made stadium, good alumni support, and forms a nice mid-Atlantic group of schools with JMU, Navy, Temple, ECU

Richmond: Same as above, still has solid football but much smaller enrollment/alumni base

App State: Good fan base, great football, tradition of winning, but do you need another small brand school in NC?

Georgia State: Massive enrollment, campus in a large urban metro area of Atlanta fits the existing profile of schools like UH/Cincinnati/Memphis/Tulane/SMU etc. Sports stink for the most part and they have no money or popularity in their own market

UAB: Financial difficulties, decent basketball brand and in a large city but state legislature wants to cut the legs out from under them

Then there's a pile of steaming garbage to choose from like Charlotte, ODU, Louisiana, Middle Tennessee, etc.

BYU football only would be the dream but I don't see them giving up Independence in the future. They saw what a schedule of G5 games did for them in the playoff rankings and its clearly not worth it.

Obviously Boise is a known brand at this stage, but I'd really think twice before adding them if I'm Aresco. There are just so many possible negatives and I don't know that they truly outweigh the positives of bringing the Broncos into the league full time. How many times would Boise State have to win the league and make the NY6 in the next 11 years (when current TV deal ends) to financially justify the Broncos being in the league? Cinci, ECU, Houston, UCF, and USF all have future home and homes with them already. I'd maybe encourage the league to schedule the Broncos in the non-conference and knock them out of the NY6 race on an annual basis, but I don't know if bringing them into the league is the best concept for either side. While Boise wants to align itself with football minded schools, it needs to be careful about losing its existing recruiting base and identity. JMU has proven they can win games and is a much much much better fit geographically than Boise. And if you wanted to get back to 12 for hoops you could easily include JMU for all sports to the league.

 

[hank970]

Nobody beyond about 10 schools in the whole country move the needle. It is more about content and market. When volume of quality content is appreciated, we’ll be of value.

Content is more important than market. If a school doesn't put an exciting and entertaining product on the field, few will tune-in no matter how large the market.

 

[Adios]

Specifically as it relates to Boise- no ESPN doesn't have to pony up anything extra unless there is a pro-rata clause in the new deal. The only reason I'd add a 12th football team if I'm the American is because your waiver to play a title game with 11 ends after this upcoming season in 2021. Assuming that waiver doesn't get extended, they'll have to bring in somebody because I'd imagine the conference title game is an important part of the TV deal.

Adding Boise gives you the West/East splits of:

Boise
Houston
Memphis (Or Tulane)
Navy
SMU
Tulsa

Cincinnati
ECU
Temple
Tulane (or Memphis)
UCF
USF

The other thing is for TV windows... does adding Boise mean any AAC game played there can be used in the 10:30 ESPN/2 slots? Opening another window to have UCF @ Boise, Cinci @ Boise, Memphis @ Boise, etc be played "After Dark" may be interesting for both sides. Also.. does the AAC solely focus on wanting a football only school to add at this point? Or would they be open to the right team joining for all sports?

Another thing... I really don't know what Boise's long term football outlook/potential is. They're sort of stuck in this weird no mans land, they're clearly the king football brand of the MWC but there are no other "brand" type teams to make any of the matchups compelling. If it was similar to the old WAC and TCU/Utah were still there plus BYU in the league then you'd have something... reality is even with a team like SJSU being great and winning the league this year the "branding" for those games stinks. As mentioned above, Boise recruits a TON of guys from California that are on shaky academic grounds and also dips into Texas regularly. What impact would joining the league have on their California recruiting base? And if Boise drops off even to the point where they are competitive but no longer a threat to make a NY6 game, sending teams like ECU, Temple, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane, and Cincinnati as far as 2600 miles to Idaho to play an average college football team potentially in the snow with a game ending around 1:30am ET doesn't sound that great.

The other candidates for the 12th member for the AAC that I think are at least somewhat realistic are:

JMU: Great football, ready made stadium, good alumni support, and forms a nice mid-Atlantic group of schools with JMU, Navy, Temple, ECU

Richmond: Same as above, still has solid football but much smaller enrollment/alumni base

App State: Good fan base, great football, tradition of winning, but do you need another small brand school in NC?

Georgia State: Massive enrollment, campus in a large urban metro area of Atlanta fits the existing profile of schools like UH/Cincinnati/Memphis/Tulane/SMU etc. Sports stink for the most part and they have no money or popularity in their own market

UAB: Financial difficulties, decent basketball brand and in a large city but state legislature wants to cut the legs out from under them

Then there's a pile of steaming garbage to choose from like Charlotte, ODU, Louisiana, Middle Tennessee, etc.

BYU football only would be the dream but I don't see them giving up Independence in the future. They saw what a schedule of G5 games did for them in the playoff rankings and its clearly not worth it.

Obviously Boise is a known brand at this stage, but I'd really think twice before adding them if I'm Aresco. There are just so many possible negatives and I don't know that they truly outweigh the positives of bringing the Broncos into the league full time. How many times would Boise State have to win the league and make the NY6 in the next 11 years (when current TV deal ends) to financially justify the Broncos being in the league? Cinci, ECU, Houston, UCF, and USF all have future home and homes with them already. I'd maybe encourage the league to schedule the Broncos in the non-conference and knock them out of the NY6 race on an annual basis, but I don't know if bringing them into the league is the best concept for either side. While Boise wants to align itself with football minded schools, it needs to be careful about losing its existing recruiting base and identity. JMU has proven they can win games and is a much much much better fit geographically than Boise. And if you wanted to get back to 12 for hoops you could easily include JMU for all sports to the league.

You seriously forgot Buffalo and Coastal Carolina? CCU might have been a better choice than ECU. Timing has worked against the AAC.

 

[Drew]

You seriously forgot Buffalo and Coastal Carolina? CCU might have been a better choice than ECU. Timing has worked against the AAC.

CCU was not even remotely a better option when the American was adding teams. CCU became FBS in 2016.

 

[Adios]

CCU was not even remotely a better option when the American was adding teams. CCU became FBS in 2016.

And you think JMU, Richmond, Appalachian State, Georgia State, etc, were ever mentioned by anyone when they were? Appalachian State went FBS in 2014.

God have mercy.

 

[Drew]

And you think JMU, Richmond, Appalachian State, Georgia State, etc, were ever mentioned by anyone when they were? Appalachian State went FBS in 2014.

God have mercy.

I nominated those names as other candidates for today, 2020. You said CCU “might have been a better choice than ECU” who was added in 2014. Seems like two pretty unique and distinct circumstances and discussions

 

[Adios]

I nominated those names as other candidates for today, 2020. You said CCU “might have been a better choice than ECU” who was added in 2014. Seems like two pretty unique and distinct circumstances and discussions

I still meant the same context as you. Thank you very much.

 

[Guapo]

Boise should go independent.

the next round realignment will make conferences smaller, not larger