(04-26-2013 09:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think people undersell just how good that Florida team was that year. I know they ended up losing to Bama, but I think on their best day that was the best team in the country. I also think people undersell the impact of losing Brian Kelly before the game. Having talked to some player's parents down in New Orleans they were worried before the game saying that only a couple coaches had really stuck around and that they had about half the allowed practices before the game. It basically sounded like the coaches were more concerned with lining up jobs than getting the guys ready to play a bowl game. Players were not properly prepared and it showed. Also saw a lot of players out the night before the game. When the coaches don't care it is hard to get the players to.

Agree on all points. That Florida team was damn good and fired up.

(04-26-2013 09:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think people undersell just how good that Florida team was that year. I know they ended up losing to Bama, but I think on their best day that was the best team in the country. I also think people undersell the impact of losing Brian Kelly before the game. Having talked to some player's parents down in New Orleans they were worried before the game saying that only a couple coaches had really stuck around and that they had about half the allowed practices before the game. It basically sounded like the coaches were more concerned with lining up jobs than getting the guys ready to play a bowl game. Players were not properly prepared and it showed. Also saw a lot of players out the night before the game. When the coaches don't care it is hard to get the players to.

That, and basically that SAME Florida team beat Ohio State the previous year...BY AN ALMOST IDENTICAL MARGIN (UC was, I think, two points closer...) and no-one sits and complains how bad "Ohio State got destroyed..." all these years later.

That Florida team was a monster. We never had a shot in that game, and I think that's no small reason WHY Brian Kelly left when he did...

OH, and for all this non-sense about "UC missing the NC by a whisker..." Let me say this loud and clear: THERE WAS NO WAY THE BE REPRESENTATIVE WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE BCS-CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. TCU probably would have leap-frogged UC or Florida would have. I said this back in 2009. I have said it every freakin' year since. THE BE TEAM WOULD NEVER HAVE PLAYED IN THE BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME THAT YEAR.

The last chance a BE team had at a BCS championship game was 2007, when WVU lost to sPitt in the last game of the season. Had WVU beaten Pitt, THEY WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. But after that, especially when the conference began to dis-integrate, the BE representative would never have been allowed to go to the BCS-CG.

And mark my words... IF THE AAC TEAM (this final year of AQ status) IS UNDEFEATED (12-0) GOING INTO THE BOWLS...I don't care WHO it is...THEY WILL NOT BE PLAYING IN THE BCS-CG EITHER. I am completely serious about this, and Houston fans should understand what I am saying, because how high was Houston ranked last year, late in the season, before they lost that first game?

This is not about "reality," this is not about "on the field performance." This all about perception and opinion. ANY one-loss team from the SEC, the B10, the B12, or the PAC 12 will be HIGHER than an undefeated AAC team.

I, as one BEARCAT fan have NO regrets and NO shame over that Sugar Bowl loss. Florida was a beast and the better team.

(04-26-2013 10:04 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 09:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think people undersell just how good that Florida team was that year. I know they ended up losing to Bama, but I think on their best day that was the best team in the country. I also think people undersell the impact of losing Brian Kelly before the game. Having talked to some player's parents down in New Orleans they were worried before the game saying that only a couple coaches had really stuck around and that they had about half the allowed practices before the game. It basically sounded like the coaches were more concerned with lining up jobs than getting the guys ready to play a bowl game. Players were not properly prepared and it showed. Also saw a lot of players out the night before the game. When the coaches don't care it is hard to get the players to.

That, and basically that SAME Florida team beat Ohio State the previous year...BY AN ALMOST IDENTICAL MARGIN (UC was, I think, two points closer...) and no-one sits and complains how bad "Ohio State got destroyed..." all these years later.

That Florida team was a monster. We never had a shot in that game, and I think that's no small reason WHY Brian Kelly left when he did...

OH, and for all this non-sense about "UC missing the NC by a whisker..." Let me say this loud and clear: THERE WAS NO WAY THE BE REPRESENTATIVE WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE BCS-CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. TCU probably would have leap-frogged UC or Florida would have. I said this back in 2009. I have said it every freakin' year since. THE BE TEAM WOULD NEVER HAVE PLAYED IN THE BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME THAT YEAR.

The last chance a BE team had at a BCS championship game was 2007, when WVU lost to sPitt in the last game of the season. Had WVU beaten Pitt, THEY WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. But after that, especially when the conference began to dis-integrate, the BE representative would never have been allowed to go to the BCS-CG.

And mark my words... IF THE AAC TEAM (this final year of AQ status) IS UNDEFEATED (12-0) GOING INTO THE BOWLS...I don't care WHO it is...THEY WILL NOT BE PLAYING IN THE BCS-CG EITHER. I am completely serious about this, and Houston fans should understand what I am saying, because how high was Houston ranked last year, late in the season, before they lost that first game?

This is not about "reality," this is not about "on the field performance." This all about perception and opinion. ANY one-loss team from the SEC, the B10, the B12, or the PAC 12 will be HIGHER than an undefeated AAC team.

I, as one BEARCAT fan have NO regrets and NO shame over that Sugar Bowl loss. Florida was a beast and the better team.

TCU was a Mountain West team at that time. UC would have played for the championship or they would have let a non-aq team in.

(04-25-2013 05:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  cincy and uconn need to quit crying

Fiesta Bowl the worst BCS Big East Moment Ever-Link


2011 Fiesta Bowl: No. 7 Oklahoma 48, UConn 20. There is no question this was the biggest mismatch of the BCS era. Oklahoma went into the game with an 11-2 mark; UConn went in at 8-4. The matchup, consequently, began a debate about whether the Big East should really have automatic entry into the BCS. None of the blame should have been directed at the Huskies, who pulled off several close finishes to make it to their first BCS game. But the truth is they were not in the same ballpark as the Sooners, who had a 34-10 lead early in the third quarter. UConn never scored an offensive touchdown....

That said, in the annals of the Big East, we're not convinced that this was one of the two lowest points (Adelson cites the 2010 Sugar Bowl between Florida and Cincinnati as the other).


we now know how that debate ended

This is pretty silly. Are we supposed to believe that every time a team gets blown out in a BCS bowl, the conference's legitimacy should be questioned?

The previous time that Oklahoma had been in the Fiesta Bowl, they got blown out by West Virginia 48-28. Should the Big XII's legitimacy have been questioned as being inferior to the Big East?

Fact is that prior to the UConn game Oklahoma had lost its previous 5 BCS games including the Boise state embarrassment, the 20 point loss at the hands of WVU, and a 55-19 blow out at the hands of USC. By 2011, Oklahoma finally has a team that could do some damage and they were loaded for bear. UConn just happened to be the team in front of them that year.

Two years ago, Clemson was blown out by West Virginia 70-33 in the Orangeg Bowl. The previous year, Virginia Tech had been butt stomped by Stanford 40-12, a bigger shellacking than UConn's loss and in the same year! Those 2 routs were the culmination of 11 ACC losses in 12 years of BCS games. During those same 12 years, the Big East's record in BCS bowls was 7-5. But it was the Big East's legitimacy that was being questioned and not the ACC's???

There are a lot of reasons for bias against the Big East, but performance in BCS bowls was not one of them. And certainly no single loss - not UConn's nor anyone else's - can be pointed to as a reason for bias against the Big East.

(04-24-2013 01:04 AM)King_WWW08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 12:53 AM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  Not to sound like a troll or an ass or anything, but dude, what's done is done. Get over it, move on, and make the best out of the hand you're dealt. That's what most of the rest of us are doing. Why can't you, man? Do I need to remind you that Houston was in the SWC, a top conference back in the day? If it were still in existence today, it would be an AQ conference. So trust me, your school isn't the only one who's gotten a raw deal over the years by the BCS. Believe me, my friend, the difference is some of us have gotten over it and moved on. You will learn to do the same.

Texas rules!!!

I'm sorry, but this is an AAC board. What does Texas, a Big 12 school, have to do with the AAC other than your going to grad school? Also, count this as exhibit 1...or exhibit A, if you will.

(04-26-2013 09:42 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think people undersell just how good that Florida team was that year. I know they ended up losing to Bama, but I think on their best day that was the best team in the country. I also think people undersell the impact of losing Brian Kelly before the game.

... on the other hand, losing a coach can fire the players up, e.g., WVU vs Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta after Rich-Rod had bailed for Michigan.

Plus, Florida was in disarray as well, having endured the unprecedented bizarro situation where Urban Meyer resigned after the loss to Alabama and then re-joined the school, even though it was obvious his was now a Zombie tenure at Florida.

All that said, that Florida team was a very good one and would have beaten any other Big East team from 2004-2013 as well, so no shame in losing to them.

(04-26-2013 11:26 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 05:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  cincy and uconn need to quit crying

Fiesta Bowl the worst BCS Big East Moment Ever-Link


2011 Fiesta Bowl: No. 7 Oklahoma 48, UConn 20. There is no question this was the biggest mismatch of the BCS era. Oklahoma went into the game with an 11-2 mark; UConn went in at 8-4. The matchup, consequently, began a debate about whether the Big East should really have automatic entry into the BCS. None of the blame should have been directed at the Huskies, who pulled off several close finishes to make it to their first BCS game. But the truth is they were not in the same ballpark as the Sooners, who had a 34-10 lead early in the third quarter. UConn never scored an offensive touchdown....

That said, in the annals of the Big East, we're not convinced that this was one of the two lowest points (Adelson cites the 2010 Sugar Bowl between Florida and Cincinnati as the other).


we now know how that debate ended

This is pretty silly. Are we supposed to believe that every time a team gets blown out in a BCS bowl, the conference's legitimacy should be questioned?

The previous time that Oklahoma had been in the Fiesta Bowl, they got blown out by West Virginia 48-28. Should the Big XII's legitimacy have been questioned as being inferior to the Big East?

Fact is that prior to the UConn game Oklahoma had lost its previous 5 BCS games including the Boise state embarrassment, the 20 point loss at the hands of WVU, and a 55-19 blow out at the hands of USC. By 2011, Oklahoma finally has a team that could do some damage and they were loaded for bear. UConn just happened to be the team in front of them that year.

Two years ago, Clemson was blown out by West Virginia 70-33 in the Orangeg Bowl. The previous year, Virginia Tech had been butt stomped by Stanford 40-12, a bigger shellacking than UConn's loss and in the same year! Those 2 routs were the culmination of 11 ACC losses in 12 years of BCS games. During those same 12 years, the Big East's record in BCS bowls was 7-5. But it was the Big East's legitimacy that was being questioned and not the ACC's???

There are a lot of reasons for bias against the Big East, but performance in BCS bowls was not one of them. And certainly no single loss - not UConn's nor anyone else's - can be pointed to as a reason for bias against the Big East.

Yes, it is completely wrong to blame the UConn loss as prompting claims that the Big East did not deserve an AQ bid to BCS bowls, as those claims had been made from 2003 onwards. The chorus calling for the stripping of AQ status had never quieted down, even after the Big East won 3 straight BCS games from 2005-2007.

Basically, from the moment Miami and VT left, there was a widespread perception in the college football nation that the Big East was simply not a "big time" football conference meriting AQ status.

(04-25-2013 08:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:58 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 05:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  USF got the greatest meal ticket of them all though. You guys pretty much did absolutely nothing other than have the campus in the right location. At least UCOnn and Cincy can point to something athletically they did to earn a Big East bid.

WE heard all the same bullsh!t from ECU fans 10 years ago.

"light years away"
"will never catch up"
"ECU will run up the score on USF to welcome them to conference"

So...how many times has ECU beaten USF?

Zero, but like all things in life. Timing is everything.

ECU fans just need to get over it....

You guys have no idea what it is to live in college football state with with all the recruits to build a solid nationally relevant program literally in your backyard.....yet it took 40 years to get past petty state and local politics to receive permission to start a football program. USF doesn't have the 40-50 years of mediocre football like most of the original CUSA schools but at least you guys HAD football. USF has done more in less than 20 years to build our program than a ton of programs with much longer 50 to 100 years of 'tradition'.

I have always liked having ECU in the same conference as USF but you guys need to get over it. You got passed over in 2003 for a variety of reasons and it's not USF's fault we were able to take advantage of the situation.

Should I put the bolded part in our pity party list?

Not if ECU fans like you STFU about USF and stop with childish temper tantrum b/c you were passed by USF.

Recall...it's not USF fans ripping on ECU, its usually ppl like you that pull out the inferiority schtick...USF sucks cheap shots.

Again, how many wins does ECU own over USF.

Thanks for playing.

(04-28-2013 03:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 08:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:58 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 06:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  WE heard all the same bullsh!t from ECU fans 10 years ago.

"light years away"
"will never catch up"
"ECU will run up the score on USF to welcome them to conference"

So...how many times has ECU beaten USF?

Zero, but like all things in life. Timing is everything.

ECU fans just need to get over it....

You guys have no idea what it is to live in college football state with with all the recruits to build a solid nationally relevant program literally in your backyard.....yet it took 40 years to get past petty state and local politics to receive permission to start a football program. USF doesn't have the 40-50 years of mediocre football like most of the original CUSA schools but at least you guys HAD football. USF has done more in less than 20 years to build our program than a ton of programs with much longer 50 to 100 years of 'tradition'.

I have always liked having ECU in the same conference as USF but you guys need to get over it. You got passed over in 2003 for a variety of reasons and it's not USF's fault we were able to take advantage of the situation.

Should I put the bolded part in our pity party list?

Not if ECU fans like you STFU about USF and stop with childish temper tantrum b/c you were passed by USF.

Recall...it's not USF fans ripping on ECU, its usually ppl like you that pull out the inferiority schtick...USF sucks cheap shots.

Again, how many wins does ECU own over USF.

Thanks for playing.

I challenge you, just you, to go back and find where I truly joined in on the bolded part. Quote it in the response to this post.

Sig bet:
If you can, I'll put put something of your choice on my sig and you'll do the same--of my choice of course. Do you accept the challenge?

It sucked to being passed by USF bc we deserved it more but hey beggers can't be choosers.

(04-24-2013 12:05 AM)GameParson Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:55 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I don't think I will ever be happy as a fan as long as we are in this conference. Obviously I will continue to support Cincinnati in every way possible but every win Cincinnati gets, my satisfaction gained will be conditional. Conditional in the sense that I don't care if we beat Memphis, UCF, USF, etc., all I care about is elevating our program over everyone else so that when the music starts, whenever that may be, Cincinnati won't be left without a chair again.

In two years, Cincinnati has lost its AQ status, membership in the best basketball conference in the nation, its biggest rival (to a much better conference), a F**K ton of money, and will watch Xavier get elevated to comparable status taking MSG with them to boot...and you know what? Cincinnati did nothing wrong, they competed at the highest level in football earning 2 BCS berths, they rebuilt their basketball program after it was completely destroyed to a Sweet 16 run, have made a commitment to renovate Nippert and support its two main sports financially (coaches salaries, indoor practice facilities), and have vastly improved both their academics and campus infrastructure. Sure the city of Cincinnati could have supported their team better. Unlike Louisville, we have to compete with the Bengals and the Reds for fans but still 35k perpetually in the stands should have been doable. Regardless, Cincinnati proved it on the field and on the court time and time again that they belong in the club...instead we were left out in the cold, typical Bearcat luck.

Every single UConn and Cincinnati fan, and to a lesser extent USF fan, has gotten completely screwed and should be severely depressed by the events that have transpired these past two years. Time isn't changing anything, if anything it will only make it worst. Not one of our programs can compete with the good to elite P5 football programs with that money differential as time goes on. Hell, the mediocre to bottom-dweller programs will be tougher to compete with in recruiting and, consequentially, on the field.

The P5 is slowly starving out the lesser programs. Eventually stipends will be permitted to college players and competing at even a comparable level will be impossible to almost every program not in the P5. College sports becomes more and more of a sham every day, even still, I hope the Bearcats are apart of it instead of being left behind fading into irrelevance.

With that said, go Bearcats...I hope we dominate every god d@mn school in football and basketball in this joke of a conference so none of you get that potential chair when the music starts over us. Cincinnati has no friends in this sh!t conference...every other program should feel the exact same way.

LOL - An eternal optimist with delusions of grandeur.

Two predictions
1. You're not going anywhere
2. You're not dominating anything.

I thought this thread was about how Cincinnati fans feel about the changes. I guess you missed the point.

Honestly, as a Cincinnati fan, I'm excited about the new league and look forward to the Bearcats trouncing ECU and Memphis again and again. I am not overly excited about the ACC simply because of all the southern teams that I do not feel are a good fit for Cincinnati. A mix is ok, too many not good. I think all the teams in the league are close to one another in terms of talent, support and dollars. I think the league will be good for everyone. The problem with the ACC and Big 12 for Cincinnati is it's too big of a move. Right now we can't afford to be in those leagues, we don't generate enough revenue to keep up and we need more support from the city and our fans. Many on this board that are Cincinnati fans speak up and don't hesitate in doing so, but many don't support the program through donations and attending games.

The problem I have with the two leagues and Cincinnati is being left out of all the money. Personally, I don't think there was much different in football talent between the old ACC and old Big East. The Big East teams were winning against ACC teams in football with regularity and basketball was very close. This was before the breakup. In three years, I'll put the AAC up against the ACC in football. I think the leagues will be close in terms of talent and play. Cincinnati is missing out on 20 million in TV money and receiving 2 million. That's a big chunk of money. That's my problem. Hopefully with the exposure the new TV contract (65% games on TV) will bring the league more dollars and status.

I mean look at some of the schools and changes. Utah was awful last year in football in the PAC 12, did nothing, went nowhere. Basketball much the same for the Utes. TCU as been successful, but not overly. They got to a bowl and respectable status in the Big 12 with regards to football, but basketball was improved however still managed no post season play. WVU on the other hand has done terrible in football and basketball and looks to fall even farther with their teams this year. I think maybe women's soccer won the big 12 title. Pitt and Syracuse and frequently going to bowl games. What will happen to their football program when five years in a row, they do not get a bowl bid. Both teams will struggle in the ACC in all sports. I think UL will be ok. Football will be middle of the road to top, basketball (as long as Pitino remains) will be good and at or near the top of the ACC. But the road is not as rosey as we all think. Again, what glitters is not always gold. With more money, comes more expenses. Is that better or worse. In some cases, worse. I predict Utah and WVU will be down over the next five years meaning no bowls and no NCAA basketball. Overall, I think Cincinnati is where it needs to be, but time will tell if we get the support to move up. I'd like to see a GOR in the AAC and prevent teams from leaving and moving. This will help to solidify the league and prevent movement on a whim. I would be content in this league if the TV dollars improve and Cincinnati gets what it deserves in terms of dollars.

(05-01-2013 07:41 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  Honestly, as a Cincinnati fan, I'm excited about the new league and look forward to the Bearcats trouncing ECU and Memphis again and again. I am not overly excited about the ACC simply because of all the southern teams that I do not feel are a good fit for Cincinnati. A mix is ok, too many not good. I think all the teams in the league are close to one another in terms of talent, support and dollars. I think the league will be good for everyone. The problem with the ACC and Big 12 for Cincinnati is it's too big of a move. Right now we can't afford to be in those leagues, we don't generate enough revenue to keep up and we need more support from the city and our fans. Many on this board that are Cincinnati fans speak up and don't hesitate in doing so, but many don't support the program through donations and attending games.

The problem I have with the two leagues and Cincinnati is being left out of all the money. Personally, I don't think there was much different in football talent between the old ACC and old Big East. The Big East teams were winning against ACC teams in football with regularity and basketball was very close. This was before the breakup. In three years, I'll put the AAC up against the ACC in football. I think the leagues will be close in terms of talent and play. Cincinnati is missing out on 20 million in TV money and receiving 2 million. That's a big chunk of money. That's my problem. Hopefully with the exposure the new TV contract (65% games on TV) will bring the league more dollars and status.

I mean look at some of the schools and changes. Utah was awful last year in football in the PAC 12, did nothing, went nowhere. Basketball much the same for the Utes. TCU as been successful, but not overly. They got to a bowl and respectable status in the Big 12 with regards to football, but basketball was improved however still managed no post season play. WVU on the other hand has done terrible in football and basketball and looks to fall even farther with their teams this year. I think maybe women's soccer won the big 12 title. Pitt and Syracuse and frequently going to bowl games. What will happen to their football program when five years in a row, they do not get a bowl bid. Both teams will struggle in the ACC in all sports. I think UL will be ok. Football will be middle of the road to top, basketball (as long as Pitino remains) will be good and at or near the top of the ACC. But the road is not as rosey as we all think. Again, what glitters is not always gold. With more money, comes more expenses. Is that better or worse. In some cases, worse. I predict Utah and WVU will be down over the next five years meaning no bowls and no NCAA basketball. Overall, I think Cincinnati is where it needs to be, but time will tell if we get the support to move up. I'd like to see a GOR in the AAC and prevent teams from leaving and moving. This will help to solidify the league and prevent movement on a whim. I would be content in this league if the TV dollars improve and Cincinnati gets what it deserves in terms of dollars.

Cincinnati fan that shares your viewpoint as well. I do believe Syracuse and Pitt football will have moderate success in the ACC because the league isn't that good. Syracuse and Louisville will be basketball powerhouses even when their coaches leave because those programs have awesome fan support.

My careful about what you wish for because the best day are behind Utah, TCU, and WVU on the football field.

I am probably one of the few fans that will not miss Big East basketball. The league was too big, top heavy, and didn't protect rivalry games for Cincinnati with Louisville and Marquette.

(05-01-2013 08:28 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 07:41 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  Honestly, as a Cincinnati fan, I'm excited about the new league and look forward to the Bearcats trouncing ECU and Memphis again and again. I am not overly excited about the ACC simply because of all the southern teams that I do not feel are a good fit for Cincinnati. A mix is ok, too many not good. I think all the teams in the league are close to one another in terms of talent, support and dollars. I think the league will be good for everyone. The problem with the ACC and Big 12 for Cincinnati is it's too big of a move. Right now we can't afford to be in those leagues, we don't generate enough revenue to keep up and we need more support from the city and our fans. Many on this board that are Cincinnati fans speak up and don't hesitate in doing so, but many don't support the program through donations and attending games.

The problem I have with the two leagues and Cincinnati is being left out of all the money. Personally, I don't think there was much different in football talent between the old ACC and old Big East. The Big East teams were winning against ACC teams in football with regularity and basketball was very close. This was before the breakup. In three years, I'll put the AAC up against the ACC in football. I think the leagues will be close in terms of talent and play. Cincinnati is missing out on 20 million in TV money and receiving 2 million. That's a big chunk of money. That's my problem. Hopefully with the exposure the new TV contract (65% games on TV) will bring the league more dollars and status.

I mean look at some of the schools and changes. Utah was awful last year in football in the PAC 12, did nothing, went nowhere. Basketball much the same for the Utes. TCU as been successful, but not overly. They got to a bowl and respectable status in the Big 12 with regards to football, but basketball was improved however still managed no post season play. WVU on the other hand has done terrible in football and basketball and looks to fall even farther with their teams this year. I think maybe women's soccer won the big 12 title. Pitt and Syracuse and frequently going to bowl games. What will happen to their football program when five years in a row, they do not get a bowl bid. Both teams will struggle in the ACC in all sports. I think UL will be ok. Football will be middle of the road to top, basketball (as long as Pitino remains) will be good and at or near the top of the ACC. But the road is not as rosey as we all think. Again, what glitters is not always gold. With more money, comes more expenses. Is that better or worse. In some cases, worse. I predict Utah and WVU will be down over the next five years meaning no bowls and no NCAA basketball. Overall, I think Cincinnati is where it needs to be, but time will tell if we get the support to move up. I'd like to see a GOR in the AAC and prevent teams from leaving and moving. This will help to solidify the league and prevent movement on a whim. I would be content in this league if the TV dollars improve and Cincinnati gets what it deserves in terms of dollars.

Cincinnati fan that shares your viewpoint as well. I do believe Syracuse and Pitt football will have moderate success in the ACC because the league isn't that good. Syracuse and Louisville will be basketball powerhouses even when their coaches leave because those programs have awesome fan support.

My careful about what you wish for because the best day are behind Utah, TCU, and WVU on the football field.

I am probably one of the few fans that will not miss Big East basketball. The league was too big, top heavy, and didn't protect rivalry games for Cincinnati with Louisville and Marquette.

The AAC should have a good NCAA outlook. With UCONN, Cinci, Temple, and Memphis, there is a strong core. With Larry Brown at SMU and UCF being a borderline breakthrough program we could be looking at 5 or 6 bids for a 12 team league. Not bad for a league that was supposed to be DOA. Football is where we're going to have to play over our heads a good bit. That distance isn't far though. What I worry about is that the league is too good in terms of parity and our top program can't get through a season with one or zero losses.

(05-01-2013 09:00 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  [quote='bearcatlawjd' pid='9285742' dateline='1367414893']


The AAC should have a good NCAA outlook. With UCONN, Cinci, Temple, and Memphis, there is a strong core. With Larry Brown at SMU and UCF being a borderline breakthrough program we could be looking at 5 or 6 bids for a 12 team league. Not bad for a league that was supposed to be DOA. Football is where we're going to have to play over our heads a good bit. That distance isn't far though. What I worry about is that the league is too good in terms of parity and our top program can't get through a season with one or zero losses.

Not so fast on the prospects for basketball. Temple will be in major rebuilding mode next year since they lost a ton of talent from this year's team. Although they offer good prospects for the long run, the're not the John Chaney Temple program from the 1990's. They've missed the tournament as often as they've made it over the past dozen years. The same can be said for Cincinnati who has also missed the tournament as often as they've made it since they joined the Big East. This is not the Bob Huggins Cincy program any more.

I'm not trying to be negative about either of these programs and I believe that both are headed in the right direction with good coaches and great fan support. But I don't think that either can be taken for granted either with the assumption that they'll always be there when the postseason rolls around. I hope that's the case, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Any assumptions about rising programs at SMU, UCF, etc. are premature. Larry Brown is in his 70's. he'll turn out some good teams but he no longer has the energy that he once did. I can't see him turning SMU into a perennial contend any more than Bob Knight did at Texas Tech. As for UCF, USF, etc., it takes a lot of work to build a successful program. Those schools have the basic ingredients, but it' not going to happen just because there's been a good recruiting class or two, or because there's been a tournament appearance here or there. again, we'll just have to wait and see.

The best thing that the AAC has going for it next year is the fact that Louisville will still be around. They should battle with UConn and Memphis. That could get the league off to a terrific start in its first year.

I think cincy fans better be ready for 500 records, there window has opened and closed

(05-01-2013 09:17 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Not so fast on the prospects for basketball. Temple will be in major rebuilding mode next year since they lost a ton of talent from this year's team. Although they offer good prospects for the long run, the're not the John Chaney Temple program from the 1990's. They've missed the tournament as often as they've made it over the past dozen years.

That's somewhat misleading there. Temple has been to 6 straight the past dozen years from 2008-2013. They made the NIT from 2002-2006. Prior to that they went every season from 1990-2001. From where I'm looking Temple looks like possibly the most consistent program in the league.

(05-01-2013 09:17 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:00 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  [quote='bearcatlawjd' pid='9285742' dateline='1367414893']


The AAC should have a good NCAA outlook. With UCONN, Cinci, Temple, and Memphis, there is a strong core. With Larry Brown at SMU and UCF being a borderline breakthrough program we could be looking at 5 or 6 bids for a 12 team league. Not bad for a league that was supposed to be DOA. Football is where we're going to have to play over our heads a good bit. That distance isn't far though. What I worry about is that the league is too good in terms of parity and our top program can't get through a season with one or zero losses.

Not so fast on the prospects for basketball. Temple will be in major rebuilding mode next year since they lost a ton of talent from this year's team. Although they offer good prospects for the long run, the're not the John Chaney Temple program from the 1990's. They've missed the tournament as often as they've made it over the past dozen years. The same can be said for Cincinnati who has also missed the tournament as often as they've made it since they joined the Big East. This is not the Bob Huggins Cincy program any more.

I'm not trying to be negative about either of these programs and I believe that both are headed in the right direction with good coaches and great fan support. But I don't think that either can be taken for granted either with the assumption that they'll always be there when the postseason rolls around. I hope that's the case, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Any assumptions about rising programs at SMU, UCF, etc. are premature. Larry Brown is in his 70's. he'll turn out some good teams but he no longer has the energy that he once did. I can't see him turning SMU into a perennial contend any more than Bob Knight did at Texas Tech. As for UCF, USF, etc., it takes a lot of work to build a successful program. Those schools have the basic ingredients, but it' not going to happen just because there's been a good recruiting class or two, or because there's been a tournament appearance here or there. again, we'll just have to wait and see.

The best thing that the AAC has going for it next year is the fact that Louisville will still be around. They should battle with UConn and Memphis. That could get the league off to a terrific start in its first year.

I cannot speak to Temple or SMU, however UC went through a major rebuild. When Cronin took over there was literally one scholarship player on the roster. Since then Cronin has steadily rebuilt the program in what was the toughest bball conf. Cronin has recently been to 3 straight NCAA's, a Sweet 16, and made the finals of the BE tourny 2 years ago. Now he has one of his best recruiting classes coming into Cincy. I am not proclaiming UC a NC contender, however the UC program is trending upward currently. I do not see a complete backslide at this point.

(05-01-2013 09:30 AM)shirley temple Wrote:  I think cincy fans better be ready for 500 records, there window has opened and closed

If UC was competing in the Old BE, they are definately not going 500 in this conf.

(05-01-2013 09:41 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:30 AM)shirley temple Wrote:  I think cincy fans better be ready for 500 records, there window has opened and closed

If UC was competing in the Old BE, they are definately not going 500 in this conf.

If Cincy ever finishes below .500 in AAC conference play, then something went terribly wrong.