Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MWC Tex

So which two MW teams have been talking to the AAC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pesik said:

That is a myth that has been debunked like 4000 times.There is literally no evidence to suggest anyone had any issue with Tulane, While there is tons of evidence that tulane had nothing to do with why boise (and SDSU) left, and it was for other reasons. The timeline for blaming Tulane doesnt even make sense. Boise also did not make a stink about tulane joining, that is a fabrication. it was actually the opposite Boise's President praised the addition of tulane and adding an elite academic school. boise has never made a negative comment about tulane

Link: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/boise-state-committed-to-the-big-east-says-president/

There are leaked AAC president emails that showed how it all went down. Boise left the AAC, because the AAC presidents refused to give boise a sweetheart deal. Boise Pinned the AAC and MWC against each other, saying theyd go to whoever allowed them to have a separate tv deal and to keep the revenue from that deal. The AAC presidents refused, The MWC presidents agreed. Boise then came back to the AAC and said they still stay in the aac if the aac matched the MWC deal..The AAC presidents refused again but asked for more information about the separate deal . Boise's president had told Mike aresco that they were in works with a deal with NBC to air every home game before ND. Aresco responded that the aac is splitting revenue equally but to proivide more information (maybe the aac could let boise keep the tv slots though the money would still be split evenly)..boise stops responding..presidents expect boise to leave 

link: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/boise-state-applied-pressure-to-big-east-during-breakup-emails-show/

like i noted this topic has been discussed hundreds of times, everyone blaming Tulane has yet to bring any legitimate evidence to the table 

Anyone see a pattern here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good history lesson @pesik re BE stuff...which was like an eternity ago..yet perhaps timeless. 

 

Let's talk about the new AAC television contract from spring 2019 negotiations, effective now.  ESPN protected itself if there were team(s) to exit.  Any team.  Obviously UConn's departure a few months later did not trigger any renegotiation that I'm aware of.

 

ESPN has the right to change the terms of its media deal with the American Athletic Conference if UConn bolts to the Big East, as expected. The 12-year, $1 billion media rights deal that was signed in March carries a composition clause that gives ESPN the right to renegotiate its terms if any of the schools leave the conference. The network inserted the clause in case the AAC’s football powerhouse -- UCF -- left for a bigger conference. Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and USF also were seen as likely AAC schools to be poached by bigger conferences if realignment took hold again. ESPN inserted the clause as an assurance that it would not be left paying $1 billion to a conference that had lost its highest-rated teams.

 

The flip side to it is this.  Any contract lingo that would trigger renegotiation if certain teams were added/expanded?  Seems super obvious....even it it's Boise following in line as required in AAC.

150px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_University_of_Houston_System.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pesik said:

That is a myth that has been debunked like 4000 times.There is literally no evidence to suggest anyone had any issue with Tulane, While there is tons of evidence that tulane had nothing to do with why boise (and SDSU) left, and it was for other reasons. The timeline for blaming Tulane doesnt even make sense. Boise also did not make a stink about tulane joining, that is a fabrication. it was actually the opposite Boise's President praised the addition of tulane and adding an elite academic school. boise has never made a negative comment about tulane

Link: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/boise-state-committed-to-the-big-east-says-president/

There are leaked AAC president emails that showed how it all went down. Boise left the AAC, because the AAC presidents refused to give boise a sweetheart deal. Boise Pinned the AAC and MWC against each other, saying theyd go to whoever allowed them to have a separate tv deal and to keep the revenue from that deal. The AAC presidents refused, The MWC presidents agreed. Boise then came back to the AAC and said they still stay in the aac if the aac matched the MWC deal..The AAC presidents refused again but asked for more information about the separate deal . Boise's president had told Mike aresco that they were in works with a deal with NBC to air every home game before ND. Aresco responded that the aac is splitting revenue equally but to proivide more information (maybe the aac could let boise keep the tv slots though the money would still be split evenly)..boise stops responding..presidents expect boise to leave 

link: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/boise-state-applied-pressure-to-big-east-during-breakup-emails-show/

like i noted this topic has been discussed hundreds of times, everyone blaming Tulane has yet to bring any legitimate evidence to the table 

While Boise State did apply pressure for a better deal from the BEv2, the addition of Tulane put the brakes on any possibility of more geographically-appropriate partners also joining and creating a true western division and the potential of a better conference affiliation for other sports for Boise State. While not directly associated with a financial "Sweetheart Deal", it cost a lot of money and standing for Boise State to have to park all other sports elsewhere in a "lesser" conference. With the Tulane add, Boise State negotiated the best financial deal, as other important factors become moot in regards to BEv2 membership.

I'm sure Boise State's Kustra appreciated Tulane's academic standing and wouldn't make a negative comment about the addition of Tulane to the BEv2. But I will never believe that Tulane's addition didn't play a significant part in the non-consummation of Boise State to the BEv2.

Here's a quote from Kustra, quoted in many credible articles, regarding Boise State's return to the MWC:

"Without question, conference affiliation has been an odyssey for Boise State, with all the unexpected turns and changes that term suggests," Boise State University president Robert Kutstra said in a statement released by the Mountain West. "The benefits of geographic footprint, revenue, and national exposure have to be balanced against the changing circumstances of conference realignment. I am confident that our Mountain West membership is the very best decision for Boise State University, our student-athletes and our incredible fan base."

While the "changing circumstances" referenced could definitely be open to different interpretations or even combinations of many circumstances, including the basketball schools leaving the Big East, the initial deal not being as financially healthy as Marinatto/Aresco were predicting, seeming potential instability at the time, etc. I do know that the Tulane addition showed Boise State the BEv2's lack of even trying to appease Boise State's very strong desire to add more western teams to replace the loss of football-playing Louisville and Rutgers. On a timeline, Tulane was officially added (Nov.27, '12) shortly before Boise State officially pulled out (Dec. 31, '12). You can't get Louisville (told the BE behind the scenes it was leaving in Oct of 2011)  and Rutgers (announced Nov. 20, '12) , so you go with Tulane and ECU? OK...  

Never will be able to provide proof and there's a good possibility I could be totally wrong, but I very strongly believe Boise State would currently be in the AAC if two more western schools along with SDSU had been added at the time prior to the Tulane invite. BYU and Air Force? Fresno and Nevada? There were definitely better-than-Tulsa football program picks out west that would also have been of benefit to Boise State.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SparkysDad said:

While Boise State did apply pressure for a better deal from the BEv2, the addition of Tulane put the brakes on any possibility of more geographically-appropriate partners also joining and creating a true western division and the potential of a better conference affiliation for other sports for Boise State. While not directly associated with a financial "Sweetheart Deal", it cost a lot of money and standing for Boise State to have to park all other sports elsewhere in a "lesser" conference. With the Tulane add, Boise State negotiated the best financial deal, as other important factors become moot in regards to BEv2 membership.

I'm sure Boise State's Kustra appreciated Tulane's academic standing and wouldn't make a negative comment about the addition of Tulane to the BEv2. But I will never believe that Tulane's addition didn't play a significant part in the non-consummation of Boise State to the BEv2.

Here's a quote from Kustra, quoted in many credible articles, regarding Boise State's return to the MWC:

"Without question, conference affiliation has been an odyssey for Boise State, with all the unexpected turns and changes that term suggests," Boise State University president Robert Kutstra said in a statement released by the Mountain West. "The benefits of geographic footprint, revenue, and national exposure have to be balanced against the changing circumstances of conference realignment. I am confident that our Mountain West membership is the very best decision for Boise State University, our student-athletes and our incredible fan base."

While the "changing circumstances" referenced could definitely be open to different interpretations or even combinations of many circumstances, including the basketball schools leaving the Big East, the initial deal not being as financially healthy as Marinatto/Aresco were predicting, seeming potential instability at the time, etc. I do know that the Tulane addition showed Boise State the BEv2's lack of even trying to appease Boise State's very strong desire to add more western teams to replace the loss of football-playing Louisville and Rutgers. On a timeline, Tulane was officially added (Nov.27, '12) shortly before Boise State officially pulled out (Dec. 31, '12). You can't get Louisville (told the BE behind the scenes it was leaving in Oct of 2011)  and Rutgers (announced Nov. 20, '12) , so you go with Tulane and ECU? OK...  

Never will be able to provide proof and there's a good possibility I could be totally wrong, but I very strongly believe Boise State would currently be in the AAC if two more western schools along with SDSU had been added at the time prior to the Tulane invite. BYU and Air Force? Fresno and Nevada? There were definitely better-than-Tulsa football program picks out west that would also have been of benefit to Boise State.

 

 

 

This has been explained so often on the board but every now and then we get uneducated fools like Jo blow who come here and spout nonsense that we know to be false.  It happens so often it gets boring debunking them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno why everyone is getting so torqued up about the Tulane. They're fine. They stay. I would take a temporary pay cut to see Tulsa and East Carolina exit AAC.  Down to 9 when that happens.

Gladly welcome 3 to 5 from MWC/BYU.  No bigger than 14 for football.  And then there's the Wichita State matter for Oly sports only in AAC.  They stay.  

150px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_University_of_Houston_System.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, UofMTigers said:

Tulane built a new on campus stadium and is currently enjoying Back-to-Back bowl games...Tulane wasn't even the last AAC team added. That would be Tulsa.

Last one full in, first one full out.  Followed by East Carolina.  Mits off both the Tulane and Temple.  Non negotiable.  Especially Temple. 

150px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_University_of_Houston_System.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny you guys think this has anything to do with the 2020 season.  Boise has 0, absolutely 0, and I know this beyond any doubt, desire to play in fall 2020. The logistics would be impossible even if Tromp did not make it known widely on campus she did not want our team playing this year.   If Boise is one of the rumored teams than rest assured it has nothing to do with this season and it is probing about future membership.  

@Ibanez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Aztec fan I'm good with being in any conference without Boise State and Air Force. Boise for obvious reasons. Air Force because watching their triple option is even more boring than SDSU's offense the last couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Coog kev said:

Last one full in, first one full out.  Followed by East Carolina.  Mits off both the Tulane and Temple.  Non negotiable.  Especially Temple. 

East Carolina's fundamentals are actually pretty good - especially compared to Boise State. Better football attendance, better school, larger enrollment, larger market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

This has been explained so often on the board but every now and then we get uneducated fools like Jo blow who come here and spout nonsense that we know to be false.  It happens so often it gets boring debunking them.  

What has been explained? 

And to me about what? I know how the BE history went down, I watched it live. I wasn't in this conversation though.

Pesik is providing some links about actual facts in the time line.

The post you quoted is all conjecture that literally says I will never be able to prove. Pesik quoted emails.

Boise was told they were not welcome in the AAC, they will not be invited back. The MW basically kissed their ass. Now Boise isn't as good and they used the MW to keep money once the new deal was signed.

Boise is stuck and now not playing as well, finishing behind the second and sometimes third place AAC teams. 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, pesik said:

austin is a kinda known aac blogger..who has awful track record with "sourced info"..most noteable when the big 12 almost expanded..he was extremely vocal the memphis to the big 12 was already a done deal..and went on record to criticize other people sources who disagreed with his ..called fans out who questioned his sources..went on a couple radio shows to talking cincy and memphis to the big 12 all but done -went on about it for months 

literally days after one of his memphis to big 12 being a done deal post...the big 12 released a list of 10 schools that they would choose from if they were to expand... Memphis wasnt even top 10..so my point  dont bank on his sources

if by chance it is true, my guess is sdsu and air force.....air force wants to play the same semester as army and navy (united vision)..sdsu is close with the aac members, technically already a member, a projected contender next season (ny6 potential), and sdsu hasnt shown any major public support for the cancelling of fall.. the counter to them is "cali wont let them play" my retort is cali legislators arent sdsu admins..wouldnt be shocked to see "if the state lets us play can we join you guys for the year"

boise seems like the obvius choice from the surface level- history of self-serving and a contender next year, but boise and the aac arent friends. last time they spoke was in a lawsuit.also boises president has been vocal in support of the decision of postpone

unlv and colorado st make little sense to me, both were projected to be bad, thats a lot of trouble to have 1 bad season in another conference..

also this is random but there are multiple unlv fans coming for tulane in this forum, unlv has had 1 winning season in the last 20 years, tulane has had 2 winning season in the last 2 years..glass house much

The SDSU AD, JD Wicker in a SEC guy, MSU grad and spent time at GT as associate AD so he has ACC ties too. It's possible that no fall football isn't sitting well with him.  That said, I don't see a 1 yr football only move. If SDSU is involved, it would be as a full permanent member and they wouldn't go it alone.

The two programs that would make sense to me, if a permanent move were to happen would be SDSU and UNLV; Two teams on the verge of major facility upgrades and located in large metropolitan markets ala Houston, UCF, Temple, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati, USF, SMU, Navy.  Las Vegas and San Diego fit in better with these locales and schools than they do with the smaller, regional markets of the MWC.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SDSUfan said:

The SDSU AD, JD Wicker in a SEC guy, MSU grad and spent time at GT as associate AD so he has ACC ties too. It's possible that no fall football isn't sitting well with him.  That said, I don't see a 1 yr football only move. If SDSU is involved, it would be as a full permanent member and they wouldn't go it alone.

The two programs that would make sense to me, if a permanent move were to happen would be SDSU and UNLV; Two teams on the verge of major facility upgrades and located in large metropolitan markets ala Houston, UCF, Temple, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati, USF, SMU, Navy.  Las Vegas and San Diego fit in better with these locales and schools than they do with the smaller, regional markets of the MWC.

 

Aresco has said Olympics need to be in the footprint. Which means UNLV is out. I could see you all take a flyer though if say the WCC would take your Olympics. Basically swing the WCC into a near PAC like basketball league and easily the best football non p5. Distance is huge though not sure the politics would be right with the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

  Las Vegas and San Diego fit in better with these locales and schools than they do with the smaller, regional markets of the MWC.

Better basketball programs and more direct flights to AAC cities, too.  

But I doubt any MWC school moves to AAC for the next few years. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

Question for those in the know..

Does the AAC still suffer from poor fan support?  Last time, it was posted on here that the AAC had very poor attendance at their football and basketball stadiums.   Maybe that has been forgotten during this pandemic (no fans at games).

But in a normal season, hard to get excited when the AAC struggles so much.   SMU, USF, Tulane, Tulsa, and a few others had empty stadiums.  Has that improved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
21 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

The SDSU AD, JD Wicker in a SEC guy, MSU grad and spent time at GT as associate AD so he has ACC ties too. It's possible that no fall football isn't sitting well with him.  That said, I don't see a 1 yr football only move. If SDSU is involved, it would be as a full permanent member and they wouldn't go it alone.

The two programs that would make sense to me, if a permanent move were to happen would be SDSU and UNLV; Two teams on the verge of major facility upgrades and located in large metropolitan markets ala Houston, UCF, Temple, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati, USF, SMU, Navy.  Las Vegas and San Diego fit in better with these locales and schools than they do with the smaller, regional markets of the MWC.

John David is probably the most astute, respected AD in the MWC right now.

@Fowl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
43 minutes ago, JoeBlo said:

 

Aresco has said Olympics need to be in the footprint. Which means UNLV is out. I could see you all take a flyer though if say the WCC would take your Olympics. Basically swing the WCC into a near PAC like basketball league and easily the best football non p5. Distance is huge though not sure the politics would be right with the pandemic.

Your information is wrong.

You've shared that you are a UTEP fan.  Where are you hearing this?  On the CUSA Board or UTEP board?

Check in with some AAC fans.  You have old information on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Koji Vu said:

East Carolina's fundamentals are actually pretty good - especially compared to Boise State. Better football attendance, better school, larger enrollment, larger market. 

They're a huge lot of backasswards toolsheds.  AAC has the South well covered with both Floridas and the Tulane.  We can ditch the tards of Directional Carolina easily IMO in favour of better things in the West with a limited number of expansion teams. 

East Carolina is like what in the Carnegie rankings of academic quality?  I'm thinking drive by JUCO, Jack In the Box taco standards. (Sidebar: Props to Tulsa re academic cred.. you're super stout re academic rankings. But you're like 4,000 people on campus with nary a draw for anything...see Rice). 

150px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_University_of_Houston_System.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SparkysDad said:

While Boise State did apply pressure for a better deal from the BEv2, the addition of Tulane put the brakes on any possibility of more geographically-appropriate partners also joining and creating a true western division and the potential of a better conference affiliation for other sports for Boise State. While not directly associated with a financial "Sweetheart Deal", it cost a lot of money and standing for Boise State to have to park all other sports elsewhere in a "lesser" conference. With the Tulane add, Boise State negotiated the best financial deal, as other important factors become moot in regards to BEv2 membership.

I'm sure Boise State's Kustra appreciated Tulane's academic standing and wouldn't make a negative comment about the addition of Tulane to the BEv2. But I will never believe that Tulane's addition didn't play a significant part in the non-consummation of Boise State to the BEv2.

Here's a quote from Kustra, quoted in many credible articles, regarding Boise State's return to the MWC:

"Without question, conference affiliation has been an odyssey for Boise State, with all the unexpected turns and changes that term suggests," Boise State University president Robert Kutstra said in a statement released by the Mountain West. "The benefits of geographic footprint, revenue, and national exposure have to be balanced against the changing circumstances of conference realignment. I am confident that our Mountain West membership is the very best decision for Boise State University, our student-athletes and our incredible fan base."

While the "changing circumstances" referenced could definitely be open to different interpretations or even combinations of many circumstances, including the basketball schools leaving the Big East, the initial deal not being as financially healthy as Marinatto/Aresco were predicting, seeming potential instability at the time, etc. I do know that the Tulane addition showed Boise State the BEv2's lack of even trying to appease Boise State's very strong desire to add more western teams to replace the loss of football-playing Louisville and Rutgers. On a timeline, Tulane was officially added (Nov.27, '12) shortly before Boise State officially pulled out (Dec. 31, '12). You can't get Louisville (told the BE behind the scenes it was leaving in Oct of 2011)  and Rutgers (announced Nov. 20, '12) , so you go with Tulane and ECU? OK...  

Never will be able to provide proof and there's a good possibility I could be totally wrong, but I very strongly believe Boise State would currently be in the AAC if two more western schools along with SDSU had been added at the time prior to the Tulane invite. BYU and Air Force? Fresno and Nevada? There were definitely better-than-Tulsa football program picks out west that would also have been of benefit to Boise State.

 

 

 

1) i listened to a interview with kutstra when the boise left, the "changing circumstances of conference realignment" is definitely refering to the lost of members (c7, rutgers, Louisville).. in more detailed interviews.. when boise joined the big east (aac) the projected revenue was 7-9mill, after those schools left it was 3-4 million...and he said boise value warranted more than that amount. with the deal they had in the mwc (the sweetheart deal) they could generate more money 

2) the bigger picture in your point is that "becuase of tulane th aac counldnt make a true west"  with any basic research you would see that is false...the aac targeted numerous west teams prior to the addition of tulane and numerous west teams AFTER the addition of tulane. Fresno and UNLV both confirmed the aac reached out after the Tulane addition

link: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/8765156/big-east-talking-fresno-state-unlv-well-byu-report-says

facts: the real reason the aac didnt have a true west division is because Boise sabotaged it. there had been rumors of boise leaving up to 2 months before they left..months before the date of that article. Boise had already been working on deals in the backroom..ALL the mwc teams knew boise was likely coming back and saw no reason to leave.. the aac was attempting to make the best of the rest conference...boise looked out for itself and instead of lobbying teams to join..was telling teams they might return west if they gave the right deal

this is opinion: this is why "boise left becuase of tulane" is illogical to me..boise needed 2 strong entities bidding against each other to get the sweetheart deal..if boise had supported the west powers to the aac (and gotten west members) ..boise would have had no leverge to get a sweetheart deal (aac too strong, mwc to week)

--saying it had anything to do with tulane is looking for a scape goat using conspiracy theories...it had absolutely nothing to do with Tulane.. the real reason boise left is becuase of boise greed...if you want a "pro boise" answer a boise fan. you could twist it to say the reason boise left is the projection of the tv deal went from 8 mil to 3.5 mil..but i get why you guys constantly blame tulane, its easier to say its the other guys fault and not my teams evren if it isnt true 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...