starting to see a consistent message. hope it resonates

[B1GOSU]

Did the NCAA basketball tournament make more money with 32 teams or 64 teams?

Football drives the realignment bus, not basketball.

 

[B1GOSU]

Unfortunately, that is a headwind for the AAC conference. It's a lot easier to undermine potential success than compete with it.

CR is really about individual conference power, control and revenue. Consider that during the CR process there has been a net loss of just 1 team. The goal is still to get to four conferences, although that may or may not come to pass.

I agree 100%. And the B1G, SEC and PAC 12 are three of those four conferences. The final one is whatever is left of the ACC/Big 12 combined that wasn't raided by the other three.

 

[itgoeslike]

Football drives the realignment bus, not basketball.

Thanks for the insight. . . I was using the question as an example and yes, it was rhetorical.

 

[kibblesnbits]

There are 30 MLB teams. There are 32 NFL teams. There are 30 NHL teams. There are 30 NBA teams.

There are already 65 P5 teams. If anything, 65 is too many based on the traditional size of sports affiliations.

I know many G5 schools are thankful for those road games that pay out over $1 million. That money helps to keep those schools fielding athletic teams in sports outside of football.

Virtually all of those professional teams are in major metropolitan areas. That generally provides the limit on league size. If that's the model for the future of college sports I guess we can start dropping programs outside major markets such as Alabama, Tennessee, Nebraska, etc. They can be replaced with big market teams such as Memphis, UCF, SMU, Temple and San Diego State.

College sports have completely different dynamics and economics than the pros and it is ridiculous to claim that one defines or even implies limits on the model for the other.

 

[itgoeslike]

I agree 100%. And the B1G, SEC and PAC 12 are three of those four conferences. The final one is whatever is left of the ACC/Big 12 combined that wasn't raided by the other three.

The only remaining question is the size of each conference (aside from if they actually get to 4). At one point there may have been a desire to have four 16 school conferences, but that number probably ends up at 18 or 20. If it stays at 5 conferences, I think they will average 14-16 schools. It may take a while but expansion (redistribution) is not over.

 

[Adios]

Yes, I know some of the teams used to be in what is now a P5 conference. However, they were conferences that had to be blown up because they couldn't make it financially. Houston and SMU are left overs from the old Southwest Conference. Temple played Big East football for years. UConn played Big East football in the final phase of football for the conference, as did Cincy and USF, but UConn had traditionally been FCS prior to that, and Cincy and USF were CUSA schools that backfilled into the Big East. Navy is also an old power of yesteryear that will join next season. And we can't forget that Tulane was a former member of the SEC!

All that is left now is for the AAC to add former power independent Army; former SW Conference member Rice; and former what-became-the PAC12 member Idaho. Then the AAC would have every big name school in history that plays FCS football today that is not in the P5.

There are two arguments to be made here and depending on which argument a person makes is how I view the situation.

If the argument is "Should UConn be in a P5 conference?" I will agree 100%.

If the argument is "Should the AAC be a "P6"? Hell no!

If I was a betting man, I'd take Temple over Indiana, head-to-head in football right now. Temple's QB is insanely good.

 

[B1GOSU]

If I was a betting man, I'd take Temple over Indiana, head-to-head in football right now. Temple's QB is insanely good.

Indiana beat Penn State last year 44-24. My money would be on the Hoosiers over Temple.

 

[upstater]

Another way to look at this ---- TV Networks are in business to make money.

The Baylor-UCF Fiesta Bowl ratings were down 11% from the previous year's matchup of Oregon-Kansas State. The TV Networks expect big money teams to play in these big-money games. No team in the AAC can pull off the ratings of a Power 5 matchup.

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

Baylor is a private religious school. Blame it on Baylor. Actually, I'm surprised the ratings of 11% were that good, given that there was a small religious private involved in the game as opposed to two state schools who are the best football schools in their respective states.

 

[dayooper]

If I was a betting man, I'd take Temple over Indiana, head-to-head in football right now. Temple's QB is insanely good.

I wouldn't.

 

[Adios]

I wouldn't.

I am reconsidering. lol But Temple can play.

 

[upstater]

Yes, you missed the part about Louisville being replaced with Tulane, Tulsa and East Carolina.

Show one sign of strength and you are gobbled up by a P5. The AAC will never amount to anything but a Group of 5.

Just to be clear, most of the fans here feel the ex-CUSA schools are the equals of the old BE teams that left, and that the level of competition hasn't dropped. Much of our perception is based on competition against all these schools, and competition against some B1G schools like Indiana and Michigan, or many of the ACC schools, or Vanderbilt and South Carolina in the SEC, or Iowa St. and Baylor. UConn has lost some and won some, held its own. Which is about what it did in the old BE.

I agree that the AAC has no heavyweights like OSU, but after you get passed the top 2, the rest of the schedule is not all that different.

 

[B1GOSU]

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

Baylor is a private religious school. Blame it on Baylor. Actually, I'm surprised the ratings of 11% were that good, given that there was a small religious private involved in the game as opposed to two state schools who are the best football schools in their respective states.

Ok, so if a B1G or ACC invite came, you would want to turn it down because the AAC is clearly on the move. Got it.

 

[upstater]

Ok, so if a B1G or ACC invite came, you would want to turn it down because the AAC is clearly on the move. Got it.

Why did you respond like this?

 

[B1GOSU]

Just to be clear, most of the fans here feel the ex-CUSA schools are the equals of the old BE teams that left, and that the level of competition hasn't dropped. Much of our perception is based on competition against all these schools, and competition against some B1G schools like Indiana and Michigan, or many of the ACC schools, or Vanderbilt and South Carolina in the SEC, or Iowa St. and Baylor. UConn has lost some and won some, held its own. Which is about what it did in the old BE.

I agree that the AAC has no heavyweights like OSU, but after you get passed the top 2, the rest of the schedule is not all that different.

Ok, so OSU is a standout over the AAC. And one other school is as well. Michigan State I'm assuming? But Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan are not all that different from Tulane, Tulsa, East Carolina, Temple and USF. I see.

 

[B1GOSU]

Why did you respond like this?

You are talking about how great the AAC is. So I could only assume you want UConn to stay there forever.

 

[dayooper]

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

Baylor is a private religious school. Blame it on Baylor. Actually, I'm surprised the ratings of 11% were that good, given that there was a small religious private involved in the game as opposed to two state schools who are the best football schools in their respective states.

I'm sorry, but UCF is not a national draw. They may be some day and completely deserved everything they earned last year. That being said, no one outside of AAC and hardcore college football fans knew what UCF accomplished last year. If they had beat S. Carolina last year, they would have had a claim to the championship game. Yet, a one loss Auburn team still would have been selected to play FSU.

IMO - Baylor was a bigger draw than UCF the casual college football fan.

 

[upstater]

Ok, so OSU is a standout over the AAC. And one other school is as well. Michigan State I'm assuming? But Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan are not all that different from Tulane, Tulsa, East Carolina, Temple and USF. I see.

First, in your 14 team league, no one plays all those teams. OSU will play 3 of the teams you listed.

Second, UConn has played these teams in the same year. UCF beat PSU, UConn played Michigan (took a miracle and bad UConn coaching) for Michigan to win. And, you compared your top teams to the bottom of the AAC. UCF, Houston, Cincy, should be tops this year.

And no, I do not draw distinctions between such teams as Indiana and Iowa and Illinois and the teams you listed.

 

[upstater]

I'm sorry, but UCF is not a national draw. They may be some day and completely deserved everything they earned last year. That being said, no one outside of AAC and hardcore college football fans knew what UCF accomplished last year. If they had beat S. Carolina last year, they would have had a claim to the championship game. Yet, a one loss Auburn team still would have been selected to play FSU.

IMO - Baylor was a bigger draw than UCF the casual college football fan.

I can't imagine in my wildest dreams that either team would move the meter at all nationally. This Baylor team with Griffin was beaten twice by UConn in recent years. They have been a dreggy bottom-of-the-barrel team until just recently. UCF fairly dominated them beyond the score.

UCF's wins over Penn State, Louisville and Baylor got some acclaim, on ESPN especially, and the run of its Heisman candidate QB was pretty impressive. It's a 50k student campus.

 

[upstater]

You are talking about how great the AAC is. So I could only assume you want UConn to stay there forever.

You're arguing with imaginary strawmen. No one said the AAC is the greatest. Come back to reality and reply to things people are actually saying.

 

[itgoeslike]

Just to be clear, most of the fans here feel the ex-CUSA schools are the equals of the old BE teams that left, and that the level of competition hasn't dropped.

I'm not sure if I can go that far. . .. I think the 8-team conference with WVU et al was much better top to bottom than they were given credit for. But I do agree that UCF, ECU, Navy and an improving Houston and SMU not only routinely beat P5 teams as of late, but play at the same level of many of the teams that departed.

 

[itgoeslike]

I'm sorry, but UCF is not a national draw. They may be some day and completely deserved everything they earned last year. That being said, no one outside of AAC and hardcore college football fans knew what UCF accomplished last year. If they had beat S. Carolina last year, they would have had a claim to the championship game. Yet, a one loss Auburn team still would have been selected to play FSU.

IMO - Baylor was a bigger draw than UCF the casual college football fan.

Both teams have a limited national following. However, a Boise State (G5) vs. Oklahoma rematch would garner solid ratings, which is contrary to the point that was made earlier.

 

[upstater]

I'm not sure if I can go that far. . .. I think the 8-team conference with WVU et al was much better top to bottom than they were given credit for. But I do agree that UCF, ECU, Navy and an improving Houston and SMU not only routinely beat P5 teams as of late, but play at the same level of many of the teams that departed.

WV was really good back then but UCF played just as well last year. Remember, teams like Pitt and Cuse were sucking up the joint. USF, Cincy and UConn are the holdovers. The question is, can UCF and East Carolina be like WV and Louisville. I am pretty confident that Houston and SMU can do a Pitt and Syracuse at the very least.

 

[Adios]

You are talking about how great the AAC is. So I could only assume you want UConn to stay there forever.

Dude, no schools wants to stay in the AAC together. Expansion is going to happen. We'll land on our feet somewhere. I don't mind staying in the Hockey East.

 

[dayooper]

Just to be clear, most of the fans here feel the ex-CUSA schools are the equals of the old BE teams that left, and that the level of competition hasn't dropped. Much of our perception is based on competition against all these schools, and competition against some B1G schools like Indiana and Michigan, or many of the ACC schools, or Vanderbilt and South Carolina in the SEC, or Iowa St. and Baylor. UConn has lost some and won some, held its own. Which is about what it did in the old BE.

I agree that the AAC has no heavyweights like OSU, but after you get passed the top 2, the rest of the schedule is not all that different.

I believe that The AAC is underrated. That being said, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, and Temple are no where near what most of the otherP5 conference teams are. I know UConn should have beat Michigan last year, but they didn't. This team, along with the 2008/09 teams, was widely consider one of the worse teams since 1928/29. Last years Michigan team, like most of the Big10 (sans Purdue, Division II Grand Valley St might have been competitive with that mess) would have beaten those teams.

I understand you think The Big10 is horrific football conference, and I have no problem with that. I completely disagree that the bottom of The AAC is even close to the middle of the Big10. Tulsa had a hard time in The CUSA and Temple's only success were the MAC years (and they never played in a MAC championship in their four year conference affiliation). Even Tulane has been mediocre in CUSA.

The AAC has some good football programs (UCF and Cinci) and I love the ECU add. I believe that UConn, much like Michigan, will improve this year. Houston and SMU have potential to be very good too. The bottom is a mess, though.

 

[dayooper]

Both teams have a limited national following. However, a Boise State (G5) vs. Oklahoma rematch would garner solid ratings, which is contrary to the point that was made earlier.

Agree 100%

 

[dayooper]

WV was really good back then but UCF played just as well last year. Remember, teams like Pitt and Cuse were sucking up the joint. USF, Cincy and UConn are the holdovers. The question is, can UCF and East Carolina be like WV and Louisville. I am pretty confident that Houston and SMU can do a Pitt and Syracuse at the very least.

UCF had a great season. The question is, can they keep it up? They were up and down in C-USA, never quite having the season they did last. They have a good coach in O'Leary and a tremendous recruiting base. Replacing the #3 pick in The NFL Draft will be the key for this year. If they can, they will be fine.

 

[pj]

IMO - Baylor was a bigger draw than UCF the casual college football fan.

Yes, but again, this was UCF's first appearance on the national stage. If they keep coming back, they'll gather more interest, just like Boise State did.

 

[upstater]

I believe that The AAC is underrated. That being said, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, and Temple are no where near what most of the otherP5 conference teams are. I know UConn should have beat Michigan last year, but they didn't. This team, along with the 2008/09 teams, was widely consider one of the worse teams since 1928/29. Last years Michigan team, like most of the Big10 (sans Purdue, Division II Grand Valley St might have been competitive with that mess) would have beaten those teams.

I understand you think The Big10 is horrific football conference, and I have no problem with that. I completely disagree that the bottom of The AAC is even close to the middle of the Big10. Tulsa had a hard time in The CUSA and Temple's only success were the MAC years (and they never played in a MAC championship in their four year conference affiliation). Even Tulane has been mediocre in CUSA.

The AAC has some good football programs (UCF and Cinci) and I love the ECU add. I believe that UConn, much like Michigan, will improve this year. Houston and SMU have potential to be very good too. The bottom is a mess, though.

I don't think the B1g is a horrific conference. You must be confusing me with someone else. I think you have 4 heavyweights, and a Nebraska school that will struggle mightily to stay out of the middle because college football has changed.

But you're a 14 team conference, and at most, teams will play 2 or 3 of the heavy weights.

As for Iowa and Minnesota and Indiana and Purdue and Northwestern and the like, I don't see a great deal of difference.

That was my entire point.

I said the power conferences have differences at the very top, but beyond that, things even out.

 

[dayooper]

Yes, but again, this was UCF's first appearance on the national stage. If they keep coming back, they'll gather more interest, just like Boise State did.

What is Boise St's interest now? UCF has to dominate The AAC and win multiple games against big programs. They had one win against a known school, one that was dealing from sanctions. If they can do that, they will garner attention from a larger area. Being 3rd in Florida (with a very difficult path to be higher) will hinder their national recognition.

 

[dayooper]

I don't think the B1g is a horrific conference. You must be confusing me with someone else. I think you have 4 heavyweights, and a Nebraska school that will struggle mightily to stay out of the middle because college football has changed.

But you're a 14 team conference, and at most, teams will play 2 or 3 of the heavy weights.

As for Iowa and Minnesota and Indiana and Purdue and Northwestern and the like, I don't see a great deal of difference.

That was my entire point.

I said the power conferences have differences at the very top, but beyond that, things even out.

I agree, to a certain point. The middle tier teams are similar in team strength. The bottom teams aren't. I believe that Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, and Rutgers are quite a bit better than Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, and Memphis.