Originally Posted by wolfboy
Exactly. The notion that UC is somehow going to drop off a cliff in recruiting with guys like TT, Eddie Gran, and Robert Prunty is just looney. The notion that they can't regularly win a conference with the likes of USF, ECU, and Houston is equally as looney.
They'll drop off a cliff because they'll be facing a financial disparity of, at minimum, 10-1 over every major conference before ticket 1 is even sold. Boise State and TCU never had to compete on that unequal of a playing field when they were fighting the good fight as non-BCS upstarts.
The money disparity is mind-boggling -- it's the functional equivalent of UC being a Motel 6 at $30 v. EVERY OTHER SCHOOL in the 5 major conferences being the Waldorf-Astoria at $300 per night.
That's the difference you're selling to recruits. That's the financial imbalance you're facing when trying to retain coaches and assistants. That's the disparity you're competing against that is used to build new buidlings, shiny new weight rooms and locker rooms, invest in new technology to aid training, etc.
I'm sure UC will be very competitive in the new "AAC" -- but what is the competition level of the AAC going to be? I'm suspecting it'll fall somewhere around the current MWC (better than the MAC, but at least two or three degrees below the PAC 12, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC). You'll have a tough time bringing top-tier opponents on home-home scheduling arrangements, meaning lots of road games if you want a quality OOC schedule.
Can UC continue to be a force nationally? Sure, anything is possible. But, TCU and Boise State are the outliers here. For every 1 of them, there are 30 other D1 programs at lower levels who simply lack the resources and recruits to win anything more than their conference schedule.