AAC Western Expansion Smoke

3rdGenAggie · Post by **3rdGenAggie** » July 28th, 2021, 3:58 pm

ShowMeAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 3:45 pm
what do you like about ANY of those? tell me any television network is going to pay for November games pitting SMU vs SJSU and Memphis at Wyoming?! It's called the WAC16 concept. it didn't work then and it won't work now. Personally, I would be MUCH more in favor of grabbing a few schools that fit in our geographical footprint (Montana/Mt St and/or NMSU/UTEP, e.g. or even UofA/ASU if the PAC were to implode) IF we feel like we need to keep up with the Joneses regarding membership numbers OR just standing pat and being comfortable with what we are...have-nots that play for the love of the game(s) and with like-minded neighbors.

The reason for poaching a few from the AAC would be to further weaken the conference. Hopefully the Big 12 will take 4 AAC teams and Boise won't have anybody to flirt with until the Big 12 decides to go to 14 or 16.

Post by **AggiesForever** » July 28th, 2021, 4:44 pm

John Hartwell was on the radio with Scott Garrard today. He sad the schools mostly likely to go from the AAC to the Big 12 are

Central Florida
South Florida
Cincinnati
Houston

When asked what that meant for the Mountain West, he said the conference is not waiting around to find out. There has been a task force formed of some presidents and athletic directors who will look this situation over and get back to the conference leadership with a battle plan of what to do if the AAC comes looking. In the meantime, he said in his view it doesn't make a lot of sense for the AAC to come looking out west. Why?

A lot of that is the cost of travel. Football and basketball can travel, but what about all of the "non-revenue sports?" Does Boise really want to take them to Greenville, North Carolina or to Memphis, Tennessee, or to Philadelphia, or even to New Orleans to play? Those are expensive and long trips, and Boise is not going to get a sweetheart TV deal like they have with the Mountain West.

And BYU just isn't of interest to other conferences outside of this area, mostly because they frequently play championship games on Sunday and, as we all know, BYU will not agree to that. Plus all of the other drama that BYU brings with them.

It will be interesting to see it all shake out.

ShowMeAggie · Post by **ShowMeAggie** » July 28th, 2021, 4:53 pm

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 3:58 pm

ShowMeAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 3:45 pm
what do you like about ANY of those? tell me any television network is going to pay for November games pitting SMU vs SJSU and Memphis at Wyoming?! It's called the WAC16 concept. it didn't work then and it won't work now. Personally, I would be MUCH more in favor of grabbing a few schools that fit in our geographical footprint (Montana/Mt St and/or NMSU/UTEP, e.g. or even UofA/ASU if the PAC were to implode) IF we feel like we need to keep up with the Joneses regarding membership numbers OR just standing pat and being comfortable with what we are...have-nots that play for the love of the game(s) and with like-minded neighbors.
The reason for poaching a few from the AAC would be to further weaken the conference. Hopefully the Big 12 will take 4 AAC teams and Boise won't have anybody to flirt with until the Big 12 decides to go to 14 or 16.

Yeah, okay. But IMHO that would weaken our conference as well

Post by **AggiesForever** » July 28th, 2021, 5:00 pm

ustate98 wrote: ↑
July 27th, 2021, 1:53 pm
Probably but with the University Presidents making the call of who gets in I like our academic status and being closer to Byu giving us the edge. Of course I still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy so there is that.

This post caught my interest because a Twiiter poster made note of it yesterday. He noted that when it comes to research and development dollars BYU and Boise State just don't fit in with the schools in the PAC 12 or Big 12, or any P5 for that matter. And its for the same reason ustate98 said: The university presidents.

While the athletic directors will give advice and counsel to their presidents, they ARE NOT part of the decision making when a conference decides to add or kick out a school. The ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that decision is solely the purview of the member institution Presidents. So when we hear Boise State and BYU making smoke about all of these conferences that they think they are so attractive to, please note that being a "pretty face" in the football world doesn't mean jack if you can't show some chops academically. And the sad truth is, Boise State and BYU don't measure up to anybody in the PAC12 and, while the Big 12 schools are not as high ranked academically as the PAC12, they are still ranked higher than Boise State and BYU. Most of it is because all of the schools in the PAC12/Big 12 either have Vet Med schools or they have Medical schools, neither of which Boise State or BYU have or ever will.

If you want to take a look at an example where this really matters, it is in the Rankings by total Research and Development Expenditures found at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site ... ce&ds=herd. This is proof of the big boys in the US university playing field.

The Top 10, listed in order, are: 1. Johns Hopkins University, 2. University of Michigan, 3. University of California, San Francisco, 4. University of Pennsylvania, 5. University of Washington, 6. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 7. University of California, San Diego, 8. Duke University, 9. Harvard University, and 10. Stanford University. The next 15 are: 11. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 12. University of California, Los Angeles, 13. Cornell University, 14. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 15. Yale University, 16. University of Pittsburgh, 17. University of Minnesota, 18. New York University, 19. Texas A&M University, 20. Columbia University, 21. University of Texas M.D.Anderson Cancer Center, 22. Ohio State University, 23. Penn State University, 24. Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), and 25. University of Florida. One of those isn't even a university but a SUB SECTION of a university.

By comparison, Boise State comes in at 225. BYU comes in at 206. Utah (med school) is on the list at 61. The first Mountain West School to appear on this list is Colorado State (Vet Med) at #70, followed by the University of Hawaii (Med School) at 80. Then New Mexico (Med School) at 91.

Who does USU hang out with? Well we're in the the first batch after Tufts University, #100. Then comes Notre Dame, 101; Georgetown 102; Brown University 103; University of Massachusetts Amherst, 104; The Medical College of Wisconsin, 105; University of South Carolina, 106; University of Tennessee, 107; Georgia State University, 108; Kansas State University, 109; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 110; Clemson University, 111; University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 112; Texas Tech University, 113; Oklahoma State University, 114; Auburn University, 115; AND Utah State University, 116. I have told you before that USU is much better university than most Aggie fans and alumni give it credit for. Ive also said many times that given our research standing, us and CSU make better traveling partners for Utah and Colorado than do many other schools. We're more alike the schools in the PAC12 than BYU and Boise. Now I'm not saying that will happen. Just pointing out obvious shared traits.

The next Mountain West school on the list is Wyoming at 147. Then Nevada at 149. San Diego State is 162, followed by UNLV at 176. Rounding our the Mountain West is Air Force Academy at 199, San Jose State at 214, Boise State at 225, and Fresno State, 349. Other schools of local note listed are Weber State at 658, Southern Utah at 716, and Utah Valley at 825. Dixie State did not make the list.

So what does all this mean in the big scheme of things? It shows that "like" schools tend to congregate together in conferences-- the only PAC12 school outside the top 100 was Oregon at 159. Not sure why that is. Maybe they are tied somehow to the Oregon University of Health Sciences, which comes in at 69. But whatever, even if Oregon is the outlier, most of the schools in the PAC12 have giant endowments and humongous research programs, and either a medical school or a vet school-- which BYU and Boise State don't have. Same for the Big 12 as presently constituted, although that may change going forward now that Texas and Oklahoma are pulling out. As I noted in another post, John Hartwell said on the radio today that the schools most likely to replace them in the Big 12 are Cincinnati (Med School), 54, Houston 125 (but UH Health Sciences is ranked 92), Central Florida, 98, and South Florida (Med School), 42.

But I just thought I would lay out that little bit of research for you, to show why its not going to be easy for The Boise State School of Truck Drivng Transportation Technology and the Brigham Young University of Home Economics to wave their magic wand and be accepted by academians. They don't measure up, and it doesn't break my heart at all.

ViAggie · Post by **ViAggie** » July 28th, 2021, 5:16 pm

AggiesForever wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 5:00 pm

ustate98 wrote: ↑
July 27th, 2021, 1:53 pm
Probably but with the University Presidents making the call of who gets in I like our academic status and being closer to Byu giving us the edge. Of course I still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy so there is that.
This post caught my interest because a Twiiter poster made note of it yesterday. He noted that when it comes to research and development dollars BYU and Boise State just don't fit in with the schools in the PAC 12 or Big 12, or any P5 for that matter. And its for the same reason ustate98 said: The university presidents.

While the athletic directors will give advice and counsel to their presidents, they ARE NOT part of the decision making when a conference decides to add or kick out a school. The ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that decision is solely the purview of the member institution Presidents. So when we hear Boise State and BYU making smoke about all of these conferences that they think they are so attractive to, please note that being a "pretty face" in the football world doesn't mean jack if you can't show some chops academically. And the sad truth is, Boise State and BYU don't measure up to anybody in the PAC12 and, while the Big 12 schools are not as high ranked academically as the PAC12, they are still ranked higher than Boise State and BYU. Most of it is because all of the schools in the PAC12/Big 12 either have Vet Med schools or they have Medical schools, neither of which Boise State or BYU have or ever will.

If you want to take a look at an example where this really matters, it is in the Rankings by total Research and Development Expenditures found at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site ... ce&ds=herd. This is proof of the big boys in the US university playing field.

The Top 10, listed in order, are: 1. Johns Hopkins University, 2. University of Michigan, 3. University of California, San Francisco, 4. University of Pennsylvania, 5. University of Washington, 6. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 7. University of California, San Diego, 8. Duke University, 9. Harvard University, and 10. Stanford University. The next 15 are: 11. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 12. University of California, Los Angeles, 13. Cornell University, 14. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 15. Yale University, 16. University of Pittsburgh, 17. University of Minnesota, 18. New York University, 19. Texas A&M University, 20. Columbia University, 21. University of Texas M.D.Anderson Cancer Center, 22. Ohio State University, 23. Penn State University, 24. Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), and 25. University of Florida. One of those isn't even a university but a SUB SECTION of a university.

By comparison, Boise State comes in at 225. BYU comes in at 206. Utah (med school) is on the list at 61. The first Mountain West School to appear on this list is Colorado State (Vet Med) at #70, followed by the University of Hawaii (Med School) at 80. Then New Mexico (Med School) at 91.

Who does USU hang out with? Well we're in the the first batch after Tufts University, #100. Then comes Notre Dame, 101; Georgetown 102; Brown University 103; University of Massachusetts Amherst, 104; The Medical College of Wisconsin, 105; University of South Carolina, 106; University of Tennessee, 107; Georgia State University, 108; Kansas State University, 109; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 110; Clemson University, 111; University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 112; Texas Tech University, 113; Oklahoma State University, 114; Auburn University, 115; AND Utah State University, 116. I have told you before that USU is much better university than most Aggie fans and alumni give it credit for. Ive also said many times that given our research standing, us and CSU make better traveling partners for Utah and Colorado than do many other schools. We're more alike the schools in the PAC12 than BYU and Boise. Now I'm not saying that will happen. Just pointing out obvious shared traits.

The next Mountain West school on the list is Wyoming at 147. Then Nevada at 149. San Diego State is 162, followed by UNLV at 176. Rounding our the Mountain West is Air Force Academy at 199, San Jose State at 214, Boise State at 225, and Fresno State, 349. Other schools of local note listed are Weber State at 658, Southern Utah at 716, and Utah Valley at 825. Dixie State did not make the list.

So what does all this mean in the big scheme of things? It shows that "like" schools tend to congregate together in conferences-- the only PAC12 school outside the top 100 was Oregon at 159. Not sure why that is. Maybe they are tied somehow to the Oregon University of Health Sciences, which comes in at 69. But whatever, even if Oregon is the outlier, most of the schools in the PAC12 have giant endowments and humongous research programs, and either a medical school or a vet school-- which BYU and Boise State don't have. Same for the Big 12 as presently constituted, although that may change going forward now that Texas and Oklahoma are pulling out. As I noted in another post, John Hartwell said on the radio today that the schools most likely to replace them in the Big 12 are Cincinnati (Med School), 54, Houston 125 (but UH Health Sciences is ranked 92), Central Florida, 98, and South Florida (Med School), 42.

But I just thought I would lay out that little bit of research for you, to show why its not going to be easy for The Boise State School of Truck Drivng Transportation Technology and the Brigham Young University of Home Economics to wave their magic wand and be accepted by academians. They don't measure up, and it doesn't break my heart at all.

If President Cockett somehow landed us in the PAC-14 she would be crowned Queen of the Cache Valley for life.

3rdGenAggie · Post by **3rdGenAggie** » July 28th, 2021, 5:28 pm

ShowMeAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 4:53 pm

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 3:58 pm

ShowMeAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 3:45 pm
what do you like about ANY of those? tell me any television network is going to pay for November games pitting SMU vs SJSU and Memphis at Wyoming?! It's called the WAC16 concept. it didn't work then and it won't work now. Personally, I would be MUCH more in favor of grabbing a few schools that fit in our geographical footprint (Montana/Mt St and/or NMSU/UTEP, e.g. or even UofA/ASU if the PAC were to implode) IF we feel like we need to keep up with the Joneses regarding membership numbers OR just standing pat and being comfortable with what we are...have-nots that play for the love of the game(s) and with like-minded neighbors.
The reason for poaching a few from the AAC would be to further weaken the conference. Hopefully the Big 12 will take 4 AAC teams and Boise won't have anybody to flirt with until the Big 12 decides to go to 14 or 16.
Yeah, okay. But IMHO that would weaken our conference as well

I'd probably rather the MWC stand pat, given who is likely to be left to take from the AAC

But adding AAC teams weakens the MWC compared to what? Being the clear cut best G5 conference (likey second actually behind the Big 12) is pretty much the best place the MWC can hope for.

Any additions would obviously have to pay for themselves and more in a new TV contract or it's a non-starter.

slcagg · Post by **slcagg** » July 28th, 2021, 5:43 pm

ShowMeAggie · Post by **ShowMeAggie** » July 28th, 2021, 5:47 pm

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 5:28 pm

ShowMeAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 4:53 pm

3rdGenAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 3:58 pm

ShowMeAggie wrote: ↑
July 28th, 2021, 3:45 pm
what do you like about ANY of those? tell me any television network is going to pay for November games pitting SMU vs SJSU and Memphis at Wyoming?! It's called the WAC16 concept. it didn't work then and it won't work now. Personally, I would be MUCH more in favor of grabbing a few schools that fit in our geographical footprint (Montana/Mt St and/or NMSU/UTEP, e.g. or even UofA/ASU if the PAC were to implode) IF we feel like we need to keep up with the Joneses regarding membership numbers OR just standing pat and being comfortable with what we are...have-nots that play for the love of the game(s) and with like-minded neighbors.
The reason for poaching a few from the AAC would be to further weaken the conference. Hopefully the Big 12 will take 4 AAC teams and Boise won't have anybody to flirt with until the Big 12 decides to go to 14 or 16.
Yeah, okay. But IMHO that would weaken our conference as well
I'd probably rather the MWC stand pat, given who is likely to be left to take from the AAC

But adding AAC teams weakens the MWC compared to what? Being the clear cut best G5 conference (likey second actually behind the Big 12) is pretty much the best place the MWC can hope for.

Any additions would obviously have to pay for themselves and more in a new TV contract or it's a non-starter.

Im saying that if the money is only marginally better (which I think it would be if SMU, Memphis, and Tulsa were the adds, and even worse if it is Rice, Tulane and UTSA are the adds, as has been discussed elsewhere) then adding those teams weakens the conference compared to where it would be without adding those teams. It all depends on how much better the money would be of course, but adding teams like that would have a substantial de-stabilizing effect which would be bad for the conference in the medium- to long-term. IMO, of course.

Growth isn't always good. It's true in national economics (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020 ... out-growth), city/town population dynamics, and the composition of collegiate athletic conferences. Standing pat would be better than inviting 3 or 4 mediocre teams from the AAC, unless it was clear that the money would (somehow) be LOTS better and the legal team could do something to lock those teams, especially, in for an extended stay. The top of the AAC or most (any/all?) of the teams from the BIG 12 would potentially be a different story...

ViAggie · Post by **ViAggie** » July 28th, 2021, 5:52 pm

Well this is interesting - ESPN conspired with the AAC? Geez, I wonder why? /s

Upcoming Events

Event Results