First thing, congrats to UCF on the big win at Louisville last night!

The good news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that a team other than the two walking out the door--Rutgers/Louisville--will be getting the BCS bid this year!

The bad news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that the team--UCF--will be walking out the door with them. (To the Big 12)

(10-19-2013 06:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  First thing, congrats to UCF on the big win at Louisville last night!

The good news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that a team other than the two walking out the door--Rutgers/Louisville--will be getting the BCS bid this year!

The bad news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that the team--UCF--will be walking out the door with them. (To the Big 12)

On your bad news... based on what? That seems highly doubtful, honestly.

(10-19-2013 06:17 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 06:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  First thing, congrats to UCF on the big win at Louisville last night!

The good news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that a team other than the two walking out the door--Rutgers/Louisville--will be getting the BCS bid this year!

The bad news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that the team--UCF--will be walking out the door with them. (To the Big 12)

On your bad news... based on what? That seems highly doubtful, honestly.

1. Based on their success this season; Not even going to get into their huge enrollment and market size etc.
2. Why does that seem highly doubtful in you honest opinion?

(10-19-2013 06:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 06:17 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 06:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  First thing, congrats to UCF on the big win at Louisville last night!

The good news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that a team other than the two walking out the door--Rutgers/Louisville--will be getting the BCS bid this year!

The bad news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that the team--UCF--will be walking out the door with them. (To the Big 12)

On your bad news... based on what? That seems highly doubtful, honestly.

1. Based on their success this season; Not even going to get into their huge enrollment and market size etc.
2. Why does that seem highly doubtful in you honest opinion?

I do think if the Big 12 expands UCF and Cincy get taken. But that's only if the Big 12 wants to expands or gets forced to.

(10-19-2013 06:25 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 06:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 06:17 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 06:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  First thing, congrats to UCF on the big win at Louisville last night!

The good news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that a team other than the two walking out the door--Rutgers/Louisville--will be getting the BCS bid this year!

The bad news for the AAC: It's a good possibility that the team--UCF--will be walking out the door with them. (To the Big 12)

On your bad news... based on what? That seems highly doubtful, honestly.

1. Based on their success this season; Not even going to get into their huge enrollment and market size etc.
2. Why does that seem highly doubtful in you honest opinion?

I do think if the Big 12 expands UCF and Cincy get taken. But that's only if the Big 12 wants to expands or gets forced to.

Agree 100%. Wow, this is a sensitive board....got bumped over to the smack talk

UCF isn't doing anything USF hasn't already done. In 2007 USF defeated auburn and #5 Wvu. Made the top 10. Did not get picked up by b12. Conferences don't look at one or 2 victories. UCF and or USF could get picked up by b12...I just don't think it's likely yet.

there is no smack in this thread, wow

(10-20-2013 03:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UCF isn't doing anything USF hasn't already done. In 2007 USF defeated auburn and #5 Wvu. Made the top 10. Did not get picked up by b12. Conferences don't look at one or 2 victories. UCF and or USF could get picked up by b12...I just don't think it's likely yet.

Your bolded statement is wrong. UCF built an on campus stadium. USF plays in an NFL stadium and that is a very bad thing for reasons I won't bother to list, unless you actually don't know and are interested in hearing.

(10-20-2013 03:32 PM)shere khan Wrote:  there is no smack in this thread, wow

pretty sensitive these days huh? really surprised me too....

(10-21-2013 12:57 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UCF isn't doing anything USF hasn't already done. In 2007 USF defeated auburn and #5 Wvu. Made the top 10. Did not get picked up by b12. Conferences don't look at one or 2 victories. UCF and or USF could get picked up by b12...I just don't think it's likely yet.

Your bolded statement is wrong. UCF built an on campus stadium. USF plays in an NFL stadium and that is a very bad thing for reasons I won't bother to list, unless you actually don't know and are interested in hearing.

So USC, Miami and others who don't play on campus have never really had any success b/c they don't play on campus?

Idiotic logic....

(10-21-2013 07:12 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:57 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UCF isn't doing anything USF hasn't already done. In 2007 USF defeated auburn and #5 Wvu. Made the top 10. Did not get picked up by b12. Conferences don't look at one or 2 victories. UCF and or USF could get picked up by b12...I just don't think it's likely yet.

Your bolded statement is wrong. UCF built an on campus stadium. USF plays in an NFL stadium and that is a very bad thing for reasons I won't bother to list, unless you actually don't know and are interested in hearing.

So USC, Miami and others who don't play on campus have never really had any success b/c they don't play on campus?

Idiotic logic....

Here's my "Idiotic logic". Sure I can explain the historical differences between USF/Miami/USC and USF, point out differences in location, proximity to stadium, point out differences in who's getting revenues from their arrangement and who's flat out paying rent to the NFL team.....but you've already made up your mind that my opinion is wrong. Please list the "others" who don't play in on campus stadiums. There's not many, and they aren't good teams either. San Diego St, UMASS, UCONN and Pitt. I do believe UCONN owns their stadium at least and has a branch of their college in Hartford as well as Storrs--spelling, I know--though. Pitt know plays in the Steelers stadium after 70 years of playing in their own stadium. Bad move. San Diego St and UMASS are terrible programs. UMASS is brand new so they get a pass. SDSU has had 3 or 4 winning seasons in the past 40 years.

(10-21-2013 08:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 07:12 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:57 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UCF isn't doing anything USF hasn't already done. In 2007 USF defeated auburn and #5 Wvu. Made the top 10. Did not get picked up by b12. Conferences don't look at one or 2 victories. UCF and or USF could get picked up by b12...I just don't think it's likely yet.

Your bolded statement is wrong. UCF built an on campus stadium. USF plays in an NFL stadium and that is a very bad thing for reasons I won't bother to list, unless you actually don't know and are interested in hearing.

So USC, Miami and others who don't play on campus have never really had any success b/c they don't play on campus?

Idiotic logic....

Here's my "Idiotic logic". Sure I can explain the historical differences between USF/Miami/USC and USF, point out differences in location, proximity to stadium, point out differences in who's getting revenues from their arrangement and who's flat out paying rent to the NFL team.....but you've already made up your mind that my opinion is wrong. Please list the "others" who don't play in on campus stadiums. There's not many, and they aren't good teams either. San Diego St, UMASS, UCONN and Pitt. I do believe UCONN owns their stadium at least and has a branch of their college in Hartford as well as Storrs--spelling, I know--though. Pitt know plays in the Steelers stadium after 70 years of playing in their own stadium. Bad move. San Diego St and UMASS are terrible programs. UMASS is brand new so they get a pass. SDSU has had 3 or 4 winning seasons in the past 40 years.

If playing on campus was the end all be all then how do you explain so many perennially bad football programs?

I 'get' the idea of playing on campus and believe USF will have it's own stadium eventually...but it doesn't trump putting out a good product. Before Holtz USF had good crowds...especially for a new program. They will be back when we start winning again.

BTW, FIU, FAU, Minnesota etc...have all built new stadiums recently. That is a couple small and big conference schools. Have those investments translated into sold out stadiums and on the field success?

(10-25-2013 11:29 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 08:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 07:12 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:57 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UCF isn't doing anything USF hasn't already done. In 2007 USF defeated auburn and #5 Wvu. Made the top 10. Did not get picked up by b12. Conferences don't look at one or 2 victories. UCF and or USF could get picked up by b12...I just don't think it's likely yet.

Your bolded statement is wrong. UCF built an on campus stadium. USF plays in an NFL stadium and that is a very bad thing for reasons I won't bother to list, unless you actually don't know and are interested in hearing.

So USC, Miami and others who don't play on campus have never really had any success b/c they don't play on campus?

Idiotic logic....

Here's my "Idiotic logic". Sure I can explain the historical differences between USF/Miami/USC and USF, point out differences in location, proximity to stadium, point out differences in who's getting revenues from their arrangement and who's flat out paying rent to the NFL team.....but you've already made up your mind that my opinion is wrong. Please list the "others" who don't play in on campus stadiums. There's not many, and they aren't good teams either. San Diego St, UMASS, UCONN and Pitt. I do believe UCONN owns their stadium at least and has a branch of their college in Hartford as well as Storrs--spelling, I know--though. Pitt know plays in the Steelers stadium after 70 years of playing in their own stadium. Bad move. San Diego St and UMASS are terrible programs. UMASS is brand new so they get a pass. SDSU has had 3 or 4 winning seasons in the past 40 years.

If playing on campus was the end all be all then how do you explain so many perennially bad football programs?

I 'get' the idea of playing on campus and believe USF will have it's own stadium eventually...but it doesn't trump putting out a good product. Before Holtz USF had good crowds...especially for a new program. They will be back when we start winning again.

BTW, FIU, FAU, Minnesota etc...have all built new stadiums recently. That is a couple small and big conference schools. Have those investments translated into sold out stadiums and on the field success?

Agreed. The affiliation with C-USA hangs as an albatross around the necks of former members. Any success realized during their tenure in C-USA is effectively disregarded on the national stage. If, by chance, the Big 10 lures Kansas away from the Big 12, Cincinnati is the most likely to be sought after. The Bearcats have a long history with both, established football and basketball programs. Their academic success is on the rise and drawing national attention. Cincinnati also serves as a 'gateway' to WVU for the rest of the conference. Nipert stadium is undergoing expansion and other renovations which will serve the university well.

On the other hand, UCF is nothing more than a flash in the pan. They may have success in the coming years but don't have 'tradition' anywhere near that of Cincinnati. The Big 12 may simply replace Kansas in this hypothetical scenario but there isn't any reason to think they would expand beyond their current membership.

(11-10-2013 11:58 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 11:29 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 08:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 07:12 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:57 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Your bolded statement is wrong. UCF built an on campus stadium. USF plays in an NFL stadium and that is a very bad thing for reasons I won't bother to list, unless you actually don't know and are interested in hearing.

So USC, Miami and others who don't play on campus have never really had any success b/c they don't play on campus?

Idiotic logic....

Here's my "Idiotic logic". Sure I can explain the historical differences between USF/Miami/USC and USF, point out differences in location, proximity to stadium, point out differences in who's getting revenues from their arrangement and who's flat out paying rent to the NFL team.....but you've already made up your mind that my opinion is wrong. Please list the "others" who don't play in on campus stadiums. There's not many, and they aren't good teams either. San Diego St, UMASS, UCONN and Pitt. I do believe UCONN owns their stadium at least and has a branch of their college in Hartford as well as Storrs--spelling, I know--though. Pitt know plays in the Steelers stadium after 70 years of playing in their own stadium. Bad move. San Diego St and UMASS are terrible programs. UMASS is brand new so they get a pass. SDSU has had 3 or 4 winning seasons in the past 40 years.

If playing on campus was the end all be all then how do you explain so many perennially bad football programs?

I 'get' the idea of playing on campus and believe USF will have it's own stadium eventually...but it doesn't trump putting out a good product. Before Holtz USF had good crowds...especially for a new program. They will be back when we start winning again.

BTW, FIU, FAU, Minnesota etc...have all built new stadiums recently. That is a couple small and big conference schools. Have those investments translated into sold out stadiums and on the field success?

Agreed. The affiliation with C-USA hangs as an albatross around the necks of former members. Any success realized during their tenure in C-USA is effectively disregarded on the national stage. If, by chance, the Big 10 lures Kansas away from the Big 12, Cincinnati is the most likely to be sought after. The Bearcats have a long history with both, established football and basketball programs. Their academic success is on the rise and drawing national attention. Cincinnati also serves as a 'gateway' to WVU for the rest of the conference. Nipert stadium is undergoing expansion and other renovations which will serve the university well.

On the other hand, UCF is nothing more than a flash in the pan. They may have success in the coming years but don't have 'tradition' anywhere near that of Cincinnati. The Big 12 may simply replace Kansas in this hypothetical scenario but there isn't any reason to think they would expand beyond their current membership.

I disagree about UCF being a flash in the pan. They were in the conference championship game of C-USA 50% of the time they were in the conference. They look like they'll win the AAC championship in their first year in that conference. They are too big, too invested, and located right smack dab in the middle of the richest recruiting state (density wise) in the country, as well as sitting in the 18th largest market in the country. I would argue UCF has more tradition than UC considering the length of time each has been a Div-I, FBS football program. Just one man's opinion, as viewed thru black and gold glasses. As a Memphis fan you of all people should know that UCF is not a flash in the pan, how long has it been since Memphis beat UCF?

(10-25-2013 11:29 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 08:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 07:12 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:57 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UCF isn't doing anything USF hasn't already done. In 2007 USF defeated auburn and #5 Wvu. Made the top 10. Did not get picked up by b12. Conferences don't look at one or 2 victories. UCF and or USF could get picked up by b12...I just don't think it's likely yet.

Your bolded statement is wrong. UCF built an on campus stadium. USF plays in an NFL stadium and that is a very bad thing for reasons I won't bother to list, unless you actually don't know and are interested in hearing.

So USC, Miami and others who don't play on campus have never really had any success b/c they don't play on campus?

Idiotic logic....

Here's my "Idiotic logic". Sure I can explain the historical differences between USF/Miami/USC and USF, point out differences in location, proximity to stadium, point out differences in who's getting revenues from their arrangement and who's flat out paying rent to the NFL team.....but you've already made up your mind that my opinion is wrong. Please list the "others" who don't play in on campus stadiums. There's not many, and they aren't good teams either. San Diego St, UMASS, UCONN and Pitt. I do believe UCONN owns their stadium at least and has a branch of their college in Hartford as well as Storrs--spelling, I know--though. Pitt know plays in the Steelers stadium after 70 years of playing in their own stadium. Bad move. San Diego St and UMASS are terrible programs. UMASS is brand new so they get a pass. SDSU has had 3 or 4 winning seasons in the past 40 years.

If playing on campus was the end all be all then how do you explain so many perennially bad football programs?

I 'get' the idea of playing on campus and believe USF will have it's own stadium eventually...but it doesn't trump putting out a good product. Before Holtz USF had good crowds...especially for a new program. They will be back when we start winning again.

BTW, FIU, FAU, Minnesota etc...have all built new stadiums recently. That is a couple small and big conference schools. Have those investments translated into sold out stadiums and on the field success?

In a debate I always stick to the norm, not the exception, you can find--and you have-found exceptions to anything. If you want to use FIU and FAU's brand new football schools btw, as your examples as to why it doesn't matter if you have an on campus stadium then fine. To answer your question about Minnesota my answer is: YES. I won't bother to list the 60 plus successful schools with on campus stadiums. You don't want to hear it, and will continue to point out the schools with on campus stadiums that are currently having bad seasons or bad attendance. (And they will be mostly small non P5 schools with little history.) I
Bulls fans, I think it would make a difference in a positive way not just in wins and losses for USF, but for other things like revenues, not paying rent to the NFL any longer and last but not least the school pride having your own OCS brings. Did you ever attend a college with an on campus stadium? Not talking trash just asking.