I have seen many threads on this board jumping on AAC teams like Temple,USF,UConn,Memphis and upcoming members Tulane and Tulsa for not winning this year or in past, but here is our new reality. The AAC is competing with MWC and MAC to get their champion in BCS bowl as has been shown this year you have a better shot at being higher ranked if you are a Fresno or Northern Illinois and are in a conference where they might be ONE other team with a pulse that might beat you than being in a conference with more competitors.

So that being said I believe for the AAC having two no more than three good teams a year and the rest being ok but not good enough to beat the top three is the best deal. We need patsies

We need Army. Most prestigious patsy in college football.

That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

(11-11-2013 11:57 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I have seen many threads on this board jumping on AAC teams like Temple,USF,UConn,Memphis and upcoming members Tulane and Tulsa for not winning this year or in past, but here is our new reality. The AAC is competing with MWC and MAC to get their champion in BCS bowl as has been shown this year you have a better shot at being higher ranked if you are a Fresno or Northern Illinois and are in a conference where they might be ONE other team with a pulse that might beat you than being in a conference with more competitors.

So that being said I believe for the AAC having two no more than three good teams a year and the rest being ok but not good enough to beat the top three is the best deal. We need patsies

Our only hope is that the selection committee system is more attuned to the difference between the schedule quality of the different G5 conferences. Otherwise, we wont be landing the BCS slot as often as we should.

I agree with the OP. Having a very good top 2 or 3 teams is better than everyone being good. Out of our 11 teams, we need 2-3 to be pitiful, basically bye weeks for everyone (like Uconn this year). We need 4-5 to be average, win their OOC games but lose in conference to the top teams. And we need 2-3 top teams, at least one going undefeated. Boise wrote the book on how to get ranked without playing anyone and the big east wrote the book on how to get no respect by having too much parity top to bottom.

I agree SoS will matter, but if you lose 2 games and there is an undefeated MAC team, no SoS can save you.

(11-11-2013 12:02 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

Correct. The new committee saw how flawed the BCS system was in regards to SoS. The more strong teams the better now.

(11-11-2013 12:10 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:02 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

Correct. The new committee saw how flawed the BCS system was in regards to SoS. The more strong teams the better now.

I think you guys are giving too much credit to the committee, made up of BCS teams who put together the BCS system as it stands now. I agree SoS will be an element, but if UCF has a SoS of 20 and 2 losses, there is no way they are picked over an undefeated MAC or MWC team, regardless of SoS. If AAC champ has 3 losses, don't even try.

We need doormats.

(11-11-2013 12:14 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:10 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:02 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

Correct. The new committee saw how flawed the BCS system was in regards to SoS. The more strong teams the better now.

I think you guys are giving too much credit to the committee, made up of BCS teams who put together the BCS system as it stands now. I agree SoS will be an element, but if UCF has a SoS of 20 and 2 losses, there is no way they are picked over an undefeated MAC or MWC team, regardless of SoS. If AAC champ has 3 losses, don't even try.

We need doormats.

Agree, and honestly, SoS is just in there to justify Notre Dame.

(11-11-2013 12:10 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:02 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

Correct. The new committee saw how flawed the BCS system was in regards to SoS. The more strong teams the better now.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's going to matter. This is the P5s way of saying you have to play in a P5 conference for your record to matter. For a G5 to gain access to the playoffs, they'll need to hit on a perfect storm:
1) Have a great team
2) Schedule 3-4 P5 OOC games and win them all (likely on the road, with their conference officials)
3) Hope that 2 or 3 of those P5 teams also have really good seasons.

(11-11-2013 12:27 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:10 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:02 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

Correct. The new committee saw how flawed the BCS system was in regards to SoS. The more strong teams the better now.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's going to matter. This is the P5s way of saying you have to play in a P5 conference for your record to matter. For a G5 to gain access to the playoffs, they'll need to hit on a perfect storm:
1) Have a great team
2) Schedule 3-4 P5 OOC games and win them all (likely on the road, with their conference officials)
3) Hope that 2 or 3 of those P5 teams also have really good seasons.

G5 has 0 chance at the playoff. We are discussing the access bowl, which will go to the selected G5 champion.

(11-11-2013 12:14 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:10 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:02 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

Correct. The new committee saw how flawed the BCS system was in regards to SoS. The more strong teams the better now.

I think you guys are giving too much credit to the committee, made up of BCS teams who put together the BCS system as it stands now. I agree SoS will be an element, but if UCF has a SoS of 20 and 2 losses, there is no way they are picked over an undefeated MAC or MWC team, regardless of SoS. If AAC champ has 3 losses, don't even try.

We need doormats.

This is why I am not big on the idea of going crazy with upgrading the OOC schedules of our teams. We already play a tougher schedule than the other G-5 conferences. Two games each vs AQ teams is all we need in our OOC's. We need as many teams as possible to enter league play above .500. In fact, we need several teams to exit the OOC undefeated. To make the BCS---an AAC school will generally need to have no more than one loss.

(11-11-2013 12:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:14 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:10 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:02 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

Correct. The new committee saw how flawed the BCS system was in regards to SoS. The more strong teams the better now.

I think you guys are giving too much credit to the committee, made up of BCS teams who put together the BCS system as it stands now. I agree SoS will be an element, but if UCF has a SoS of 20 and 2 losses, there is no way they are picked over an undefeated MAC or MWC team, regardless of SoS. If AAC champ has 3 losses, don't even try.

We need doormats.

This is why I am not crazy about the idea of going crazy with upgrading the OOC schedules of our teams. Two games each vs AQ teams is all we need in our OOC's. We need as many teams as possible to enter league play above .500. In fact, we need several teams to exit the OOC undefeated. To make the BCS---an AAC school will generally need to have no more than one loss.

I agree. We would be better off scheduling one top 25 type team, one crap P5 team (purdue, illinois, duke, etc.), and then trying to schedule who would be a top contender for the access bowl. If NIU can just roll through garbage MAC teams, lets have our top teams beat them directly in an OOC match. I like having fate in my own hands, and having an AAC contender beat up on NIU, Fresno, Boise, etc. in OOC would go a long way towards getting the AAC champ in the access bowl.

(11-11-2013 12:37 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:14 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:10 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:02 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  That's not true

The Selection Committee will put more emphasis on SOS and who you beat. The BCS formula is being thrown out completely.

It's time to schedule harder OOC games and have a strong conference. Our conference needs quality OOC wins if we want to make it

Correct. The new committee saw how flawed the BCS system was in regards to SoS. The more strong teams the better now.

I think you guys are giving too much credit to the committee, made up of BCS teams who put together the BCS system as it stands now. I agree SoS will be an element, but if UCF has a SoS of 20 and 2 losses, there is no way they are picked over an undefeated MAC or MWC team, regardless of SoS. If AAC champ has 3 losses, don't even try.

We need doormats.

This is why I am not crazy about the idea of going crazy with upgrading the OOC schedules of our teams. Two games each vs AQ teams is all we need in our OOC's. We need as many teams as possible to enter league play above .500. In fact, we need several teams to exit the OOC undefeated. To make the BCS---an AAC school will generally need to have no more than one loss.

I agree. We would be better off scheduling one top 25 type team, one crap P5 team (purdue, illinois, duke, etc.), and then trying to schedule who would be a top contender for the access bowl. If NIU can just roll through garbage MAC teams, lets have our top teams beat them directly in an OOC match. I like having fate in my own hands, and having an AAC contender beat up on NIU, Fresno, Boise, etc. in OOC would go a long way towards getting the AAC champ in the access bowl.

I like that idea a lot.

(11-11-2013 01:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:37 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  If NIU can just roll through garbage MAC teams, lets have our top teams beat them directly in an OOC match. I like having fate in my own hands, and having an AAC contender beat up on NIU, Fresno, Boise, etc. in OOC would go a long way towards getting the AAC champ in the access bowl.

I like that idea a lot.

Me too, that sounds great. Honestly if our champ can't handle the other G5 champs then we would probably get embarrassed in the Access Bowl anyway.

I would put UCF, Houston, and ECU up against the top 3 teams in any other G5 conference and expect to go 3-0.

the ideal scenario for the AAC going forward is like the MWC before the last round of realignment when they had Utah, TCU and BYU as nationally respected, highly ranked programs.

(11-11-2013 12:09 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  I agree with the OP. Having a very good top 2 or 3 teams is better than everyone being good. Out of our 11 teams, we need 2-3 to be pitiful, basically bye weeks for everyone (like Uconn this year). We need 4-5 to be average, win their OOC games but lose in conference to the top teams. And we need 2-3 top teams, at least one going undefeated. Boise wrote the book on how to get ranked without playing anyone and the big east wrote the book on how to get no respect by having too much parity top to bottom.

I agree SoS will matter, but if you lose 2 games and there is an undefeated MAC team, no SoS can save you.

^^^This^^^ with the caveat that we don't need piss poor teams at the bottom. They too, should beat OOC P5 teams, even if they are the Wkes and the Kansases of the world.

(11-11-2013 01:51 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:37 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  If NIU can just roll through garbage MAC teams, lets have our top teams beat them directly in an OOC match. I like having fate in my own hands, and having an AAC contender beat up on NIU, Fresno, Boise, etc. in OOC would go a long way towards getting the AAC champ in the access bowl.

I like that idea a lot.

Me too, that sounds great. Honestly if our champ can't handle the other G5 champs then we would probably get embarrassed in the Access Bowl anyway.

I would put UCF, Houston, and ECU up against the top 3 teams in any other G5 conference and expect to go 3-0.

I would love for UCF to schedule Boise, Fresno, NIU, etc. on a rotating schedule of 1-1s based on which of the teams has recently been most successful. Settle it on the field before conference play starts and take it out of the hands of the voters or committee or whatever scheme they come up with next to judge the teams.

(11-11-2013 01:56 PM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:09 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  I agree with the OP. Having a very good top 2 or 3 teams is better than everyone being good. Out of our 11 teams, we need 2-3 to be pitiful, basically bye weeks for everyone (like Uconn this year). We need 4-5 to be average, win their OOC games but lose in conference to the top teams. And we need 2-3 top teams, at least one going undefeated. Boise wrote the book on how to get ranked without playing anyone and the big east wrote the book on how to get no respect by having too much parity top to bottom.

I agree SoS will matter, but if you lose 2 games and there is an undefeated MAC team, no SoS can save you.

^^^This^^^ with the caveat that we don't need piss poor teams at the bottom. They too, should beat OOC P5 teams, even if they are the Wkes and the Kansases of the world.

After the way this season started I would be happy if our bottom programs could stop losing to FCS teams.

I agree with the OP. The old MWC had people arguing that they should be part of the BCS league. What I think will be different is that unlike the old MWC we should have at least 4/5 teams that could be very good. UC, UCF, UH, ECU and I believe USF will be good. We don't need everyone to be great. For the greater good of the conference and the next "look-in" we need the top half (whoever that might be) to be able to beat the P5 programs they play and the bottom half be respectable and smash the other G5 programs they play. if the top half is beating the middle of the road P5 schools and the bottom half is beating the other G5 schools that is setting ourselves apart.

Like Attack said, I don't think we need to go crazy with the OOC schedule. Two mid-tier teams win those and close out in the conference the AAC should get the G05 spot plenty of times.

I know the committee is supposed to look at SOS but an undefeated MAC team like N. Illinois would be tough for committee to pass on. Since we haven't seen them in action yet it's all speculation. But if you look at most leagues even in P5 its hard to find more than three good teams and plenty are patsies