This is the AAC. I expect them to add a replacement team. And I expect to be underwhelmed by their choice.
4 Likes
They can keep the unbalanced divisions and still have a championship game or they can abolish divisions and then have to play a round-robin schedule with the top two teams playing for the championship. I can’t see schools wanting to play a 10 game conference schedule so it’s likely they’ll just go with unbalanced divisions.
In all likelihood, the AAC will stand pat over the next few years to weigh their options. This will spark perhaps the most vicious G5 arms race we have ever seen, and that’s exactly what the AAC should want. Dangling an open conference spot in front of athletic directors’ faces will separate the contenders from the pretenders, as the programs that are able to raise the money to improve their facilities, coaching, etc. enough to gain a spot in the AAC will most likely be the best long-term partners for the conference.
With dozens of suitors scratching and clawing at each other to one-up the competition, Mike Aresco can sit back, light a cigar, and enjoy his leverage as he watches to see which G5 programs are really up to the challenge of joining the country’s strongest G5 conference.
Okay, but how would that work with unbalanced divisions? You have the East Division teams play four intradivisional games and four interdivisional? And then the West teams play five intradivisional and three interdivisional like it has been? Would that be possible? If it is, great. Math isn’t my strong suit, but it seems like that setup wouldn’t work.
1 Like
Good question.
In 2007, the MAC was unbalanced at 13…there was a mix of teams playing 7 games while others played 8 games.
In 2015, MAC was also unbalanced at 13, but all teams played 8 conference games.
In 2015 and 2016, CUSA was unbalanced at 13 due to UAB’s shutdown, but they were able to all play 8 conference games…little easier with 13 teams though.
Not sure how the conference will figure out what to do with only 11 teams as it isn’t as easy to do without going to 7 conference games. I’d almost rather them go to a division-less round-robin. It would probably be easy to fill the 2 non-conference games with pretty decent P5 teams while replacing FCS and low level G5 teams with American Conference teams. Would also be the most fair way to determine a conference champion.
Marshall
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1143207041256886278
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1143207624952963074
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1143209302179680257
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1143211334793924611
1 Like
https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/1143216180796231680
https://twitter.com/TheHRReview/status/1143218051082571776
https://twitter.com/ManthonyCourant/status/1143230575651753984
Other option other than what I posted above is to apply for a waiver and get rid of the round-robin requirement. Big12 was able to get their waiver approved to have a championship game with only 10 so it’s possible that this would pass as well.
2 Likes
I am trying to figure out if Aresco or ESPN is the AAC Commissioner.
9 Likes
We can always ignore them. It’s just that we want to maximize revenue and exposure and nobody can help us more than they can.
In 2015 and 2016 did they play a round robin within the division? My recollection is that they did not (and that it is a requirement for a championship games in a conference with fewer than 12 teams, though I am less sure on that)
Aresco is a puppet on a string.
2 Likes
A really expensive puppet.
2 Likes
Does the exit payout go to the schools? If so we could be looking at close to $10 mill with 3rd tier rights. That was PAC revenue ten years ago.
2 Likes
ESPN has third tier rights.
1 Like
Good post from Chicklets that I don’t think he’d mind my sharing. He says that the MAC was at 13 and got a waiver for a CCG, so it looks as if we can make it work if neither BYU nor Army join.
It would require one of:
*1. Two of the schools playing 7 conference games while the others played 8, or *
*2. Two schools having a 5th nonconference game that was designated as a conference game, or *
*3. Two of the schools playing home and home against each other, or *
4. A waiver of the rule that says divisional champs have to play all the other members of the division.
As for #4, assume 6 teams in the West and 5 in the East.
The East would play each other (4 divisional games) and play 4 crossover games.
In the West, four of the teams would play all five division foes + 3 crossover games vs the East.
And two West schools would play four in the West and four in the East, but would not play each other.
In other words, the West would be one game shy of a round robin, and therefore a waiver would be necessary.
The MAC received this type of waiver in the past when it had 7 in one division and 6 in the other.
1 Like
#2 would be a possibility if we entered a scheduling agreement with BYU, Army, or both. (Which I think is something that should be explored but I am probably the only person here who thinks that.)
No to any scheduling alliance. You are in effect elevating those schools above the conference members.
I tend to view it as a looser partnership of convenience that you can dump just as soon as it becomes inconvenient. And they don’t get the NY6 slot.
I might even prefer this to BYU membership in that if a G4 program hits a zeitgeist we have a spot waiting for them. (Which is one of the better arguments for standing at 11, in my opinion.)