(05-14-2017 10:52 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 09:58 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 09:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 01:10 PM)otown Wrote:  i disagree. apple to oranges. a houston, UCF, USF, etc etc will recruit a hell of a lot better than that 10th place ACC team if a member of a P5 conference. so your argument holds no water...... they would easily do well.

That's not what Aresco said. He didn't say "put UCF in the ACC or make the AAC an equal P6 partner and UCF could compete for ACC title", what he said was that right now, as members of the G5 AAC, those AAC schools could compete for the ACC title like they do for the AAC title. His contention is that right now, the football product of the G5 AAC is equivalent to that of the P5, that top AAC teams would be top teams in P5 leagues.

And that's comical.

By that definition most of the ACC doesn't qualiify either. Truth is, Houston convincingly beat the ACC runner up in 2015. UCF beat the Big12 champion in 2013. Both teams did it with kids recruited for a G5 league. I'd say its not at all unreasonable to think they could challenge for the ACC if they became members and were recruiting with the P5 seal of approval. They'd certain do as well or better than many current members.

Put Houston in the ACC and see what happens...wins over Florida St and Louisville Wait, that already happened. My bad.

Houston with all of their "built in advantages" could not even be a top team in the CUSA on a consistent basis much less dominate it

people need to stop pretending that because a program gets ranked a couple of seasons out of a couple of decades they are suddenly just going to dominate in a better conference consistently

when you claim built in advantages and yet you do not dominate or win consistently against teams facing the other disadvantages you do it is hard to take you seriously when you think you will play tougher teams week in and week out and start to take advantage of all your "built in advantages"

"recruiting grounds", "markets", people moving to a city (that either do not care about college football or already have a team they pull for) does not change based on the conference you are in

if you claim those "advantages" then you should have them over members of the CUSA or AAC or whatever conference you play in even if you claim the shared disadvantage of being in that conference.....because that "disadvantage" does not go away for the others in your conference

and if you try and make the specious claim that if your program moves up then "your fans" and "your donors" ect will start to show up.....well as soon as your program falters "those fans and those supporters" will falter as well because those are fair weather fans and not truly long term fans and supporters

if we based P5 membership on a couple of games then Appy State would be in the Big 10 right now and Boise would be in the PAC 12

but we all of course know that dem coogs fans especially told us all that "Boise is a declining program and it is over for them".......based on having a couple of seasons with 9 wins......so clearly dem coogs doh are on the decline as well because they were not even ranked last year and they have lost yet another coach and they got throttled by the newest future P5 member SDSU with their massive "market" that a pro team just gave up because they could not keep up with the momentum of SDSU and their great location and weather and all the people moving there with lots of money

SDSU is the new P5 darling and Boise looks to be "back"

lol. Houston had few "built-in advantages" in their early CUSA days. They were larely defined by delapidated HS level facilities, one of he lowest athletic budgets in CUSA, low coaching budgets (held on to Helton for 7 years because it was too expensive to fire him), poor leadership, and a general lack of investment/commitment to the athletics programs.

So--most of the "advantages" we have now didn't exist then. Other than a furtile recruiting area--we didnt have much. And Helton, who was obnoxiously arrogant to the area HS coaches, managed to negate the only advantage UH had at the time. Despite his poor record, I give Dana Dimmel credit for mending and rebuilding relaitionships with area HS football coaches Helton had damaged and set the stage for Briles to start winning games.

Comparing the athletic department at UH today with the athletic department in 1996 is joke. With its new burgeoning campus life with 8K kids living on campus, to all games on national TV, to a new stadium, to new dorms, to remodeled locker room, a new IPF, to a budget more than twice the size it was just a decade ago---its whole different world.

That said---the reality is---when we basically were not competitive in any facitlity comparison at all and had virtually no advantage other than our recruiting grounds--- we were able to win the SWC multiple times. Thats just a fact. With leadership that is committed to athletic excellence---the program can now operate at an entirely different level.