(11-26-2013 05:02 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So you have decent teams at the top with UCF (we'll see what happens when O'Leary is gone), Cincy, ECU, Houston.

Tulane, Temple, UCONN, South Florida, Tulsa, Memphis, SMU.....yawn. There's just no excitement there. At least when the ACC expanded, the teams brought rivalries with them.

Oh yeah- nothing like that Syracuse football team! And Pitt (who SMU absolutely curb stomped in a bowl game 2 years ago). The ACC homers are incapable of logic or clear thinking. They believe that Pitt and cuse were good additions for football. Please. BC? Awful. Wake? Awful. Ncst? Awful.

When Duke is playing in your championship game, your conference sucks at football. The End.

(11-26-2013 05:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  What are the Tulane's in the ACC?

Tulane has a richer football history than many schools in the ACC. For example, they played in the Rose Bowl when FSU was still a girl's college. True, most of their tradition was in the leather helmet days, but they have since had some very good teams and will again after the new on-campus stadium is completed. The Green Wave is an excellent asset to the AAC's future in several ways, not the least of which is the New Orleans location.

(11-28-2013 10:55 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  What are the Tulane's in the ACC?

Tulane has a richer football history than many schools in the ACC. For example, they played in the Rose Bowl when FSU was still a girl's college. True, most of their tradition was in the leather helmet days, but they have since had some very good teams and will again after the new on-campus stadium is completed. The Green Wave is an excellent asset to the AAC's future in several ways, not the least of which is the New Orleans location.

You're kidding right? Duke has played in the Rose Bowl before. Come on man.

Tulane might have more history than one program in the ACC....Wake Forest. That's a maybe.

(11-28-2013 10:17 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:02 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  So you have decent teams at the top with UCF (we'll see what happens when O'Leary is gone), Cincy, ECU, Houston.

Tulane, Temple, UCONN, South Florida, Tulsa, Memphis, SMU.....yawn. There's just no excitement there. At least when the ACC expanded, the teams brought rivalries with them.

Oh yeah- nothing like that Syracuse football team! And Pitt (who SMU absolutely curb stomped in a bowl game 2 years ago). The ACC homers are incapable of logic or clear thinking. They believe that Pitt and cuse were good additions for football. Please. BC? Awful. Wake? Awful. Ncst? Awful.

When Duke is playing in your championship game, your conference sucks at football. The End.

NC State is awful this year but they are an original member.

Wake Forest is an original member, but has at least been to a big bowl relatively recently (Orange Bowl)

Syracuse and Pitt were added for basketball primarily and to increase the football depth. Both schools have good football histories and have the ability to be good programs in the right conference.

Don't worry about Duke. UNC will take care of that on Saturday.

You make it seem as though programs can't develop and get better. Between 1996 and 2009 Baylor didn't have a single winning season. Now look at them. You would have never known they sucked at football

(11-25-2013 08:04 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 04:38 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 03:35 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  The American's top ranked member, and best team, is departing to the ACC.

BCS Standings:

19. UCF
20. Louisville

That doesn't necessarily make UCF the better team, does it? It just means that UCF beat Louisville. Louisville has better coaching and far more NFL talent, which is why they're ranked higher in non-computer polls, and why they get more respect than UCF.

UCF beat Louisville and Penn State on the road. Lost by 3 to a top ten team.

Louisville lost to UCF and........beat a two win Kentucky team?

UCF>Louisville

The Biggest troll is a Syracuse fan...Geez don't feed him, the team is bad enough on the field and to WATCH on TV...I feel bad for those fans.

My father used to work in Wall Street in the 90s and would have to go to Syracuse sometimes to visit some clients...He always would talk about how everytime he drove up, there was an area that smelled like a Garbage dump...But it was really just the Carrierdome.

(11-26-2013 06:27 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 06:06 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Don't get me wrong...I like the ECU add. I actually think ECU can become a major player in the league. I also like the Navy add. Memphis at least brings basketball. Tulsa, Tulane, SMU???

What are the Tulane's in the ACC?

I guess I'm really not understanding the angle you're arguing. I like the adds too.

For the ACC I guess i'd have to pick on Wake for a minute. I mean really who outside of the ACC watches WF? The same can be said for Tulane and Tulsa.... I'm also not buying much into BC right now. They've had big rivalries with Cuse and VT but it seems to have fallen off a lot as of late. Maybe they'll pick back up..

But for SMU a lot of Texas football fans (not all as some on this board will attest to) like to keep up with the Texas schools. When they play in-state they've got a good chunk of a huge state watching, plus AAC fans. The same can be argued for ACC teams in NC - It's just Texas has such a huge football loving population. If UH and SMU can continue to schedule Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, etc it will draw some pretty big attention their way. -- Of course these are OOC (except for SMU-UH, but the idea is similar to how NC is with the ACC... they're just all in the same conference, so that adds to the passion that NC lacks for football).

Like I said earlier, huge difference in P5 and G5, but the AAC will have some interesting match-ups to offer. Cincy Vs Memphis, Smu-UH, UCF-USF, UCF-ECU, is increasingly gaining steam. As these schools work to get noticed it will pick up, or dwindle if they don't get noticed.

In a nutshell, I don't like the Tulane, SMU, Houston (I can warm up to this one), Tulsa adds. After Rutgers and Louisville leave it only gets worse. I would expect this conference to represent the G5 in the big bowls most years, but the bottom of the conference may weigh the champ down.

So who exactly would've been better additions at that point. FWIW, I agree, I'm also not THAT excited about SMU, Tulane or Tulsa but they're necessary for the West division and IMHO better than the other available options. Tulsa is a pretty solid athletic program.

I wish that certain people in the Tulane administration would actually read this thread.

(11-28-2013 06:02 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 06:27 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 06:06 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Don't get me wrong...I like the ECU add. I actually think ECU can become a major player in the league. I also like the Navy add. Memphis at least brings basketball. Tulsa, Tulane, SMU???

What are the Tulane's in the ACC?

I guess I'm really not understanding the angle you're arguing. I like the adds too.

For the ACC I guess i'd have to pick on Wake for a minute. I mean really who outside of the ACC watches WF? The same can be said for Tulane and Tulsa.... I'm also not buying much into BC right now. They've had big rivalries with Cuse and VT but it seems to have fallen off a lot as of late. Maybe they'll pick back up..

But for SMU a lot of Texas football fans (not all as some on this board will attest to) like to keep up with the Texas schools. When they play in-state they've got a good chunk of a huge state watching, plus AAC fans. The same can be argued for ACC teams in NC - It's just Texas has such a huge football loving population. If UH and SMU can continue to schedule Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, etc it will draw some pretty big attention their way. -- Of course these are OOC (except for SMU-UH, but the idea is similar to how NC is with the ACC... they're just all in the same conference, so that adds to the passion that NC lacks for football).

Like I said earlier, huge difference in P5 and G5, but the AAC will have some interesting match-ups to offer. Cincy Vs Memphis, Smu-UH, UCF-USF, UCF-ECU, is increasingly gaining steam. As these schools work to get noticed it will pick up, or dwindle if they don't get noticed.

In a nutshell, I don't like the Tulane, SMU, Houston (I can warm up to this one), Tulsa adds. After Rutgers and Louisville leave it only gets worse. I would expect this conference to represent the G5 in the big bowls most years, but the bottom of the conference may weigh the champ down.

So who exactly would've been better additions at that point. FWIW, I agree, I'm also not THAT excited about SMU, Tulane or Tulsa but they're necessary for the West division and IMHO better than the other available options. Tulsa is a pretty solid athletic program.

Personally I think Aresco should have dropped the West division concept until he got things under control. ECU and Navy were good adds. Tulsa is a decent program but until the AAC can put together a true Western division, Tulsa, SMU, and Houston are outliers and the conference is essentially another Conference USA. I thought Marshall may make a good add to take WV's place.

(11-26-2013 02:55 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  You cannot look at this year as a success if you really believe that the AAC is even close to a P5 conference. It looks more like last years MAC. 2 ranked teams, some good middle teams, and a bunch of bad teams. Granted the middle is slightly larger but it still is not a great sign especially with one of the ranked teams (and your best overall athletic product) is leaving the very next year.

Last year's MAC had 7 teams bowl out of 13, at best the AAC will have 5 out of 10. MAC had 2 ranked teams going into the MAC title game, NIU beating Kent knocked them out of the top 25, since the AAC has no title game this year if Lville and UCF win out they will likely both enter bowl season ranked.

2012 MAC> 2013 AAC

(11-27-2013 11:18 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:36 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:25 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:12 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

Don't get me wrong...I like the ECU add. I actually think ECU can become a major player in the league. I also like the Navy add. Memphis at least brings basketball. Tulsa, Tulane, SMU???

What are the Tulane's in the ACC?

UNC and NCSU are the Tulane's of the ACC, didn't they both get punched in the mouth by a C-USA team in ECU?

UVA also lost to Ball State by 21. The ACC has 2 very solid programs in FSU & Clemson, a few average teams (Miami, BC) and alot of junk in the trunk (Pitt, Syracuse, UNC, NC ST, UVA, Maryland)

(11-28-2013 11:25 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:18 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:36 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:25 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

Don't get me wrong...I like the ECU add. I actually think ECU can become a major player in the league. I also like the Navy add. Memphis at least brings basketball. Tulsa, Tulane, SMU???

What are the Tulane's in the ACC?

UNC and NCSU are the Tulane's of the ACC, didn't they both get punched in the mouth by a C-USA team in ECU?

UVA also lost to Ball State by 21. The ACC has 2 very solid programs in FSU & Clemson, a few average teams (Miami, BC) and alot of junk in the trunk (Pitt, Syracuse, UNC, NC ST, UVA, Maryland)

Don't use UVA. They haven't won a conference game all season but somehow found a way to beat BYU.

Clemson and FSU are more than just solid.

ACC already has 10 maybe 11 bowl teams this year. What more do you want?

(11-28-2013 11:07 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 02:55 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  You cannot look at this year as a success if you really believe that the AAC is even close to a P5 conference. It looks more like last years MAC. 2 ranked teams, some good middle teams, and a bunch of bad teams. Granted the middle is slightly larger but it still is not a great sign especially with one of the ranked teams (and your best overall athletic product) is leaving the very next year.

Last year's MAC had 7 teams bowl out of 13, at best the AAC will have 5 out of 10. MAC had 2 ranked teams going into the MAC title game, NIU beating Kent knocked them out of the top 25, since the AAC has no title game this year if Lville and UCF win out they will likely both enter bowl season ranked.

2012 MAC> 2013 AAC

How's the 2013 MAC?

(11-28-2013 11:32 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 11:07 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 02:55 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  You cannot look at this year as a success if you really believe that the AAC is even close to a P5 conference. It looks more like last years MAC. 2 ranked teams, some good middle teams, and a bunch of bad teams. Granted the middle is slightly larger but it still is not a great sign especially with one of the ranked teams (and your best overall athletic product) is leaving the very next year.

Last year's MAC had 7 teams bowl out of 13, at best the AAC will have 5 out of 10. MAC had 2 ranked teams going into the MAC title game, NIU beating Kent knocked them out of the top 25, since the AAC has no title game this year if Lville and UCF win out they will likely both enter bowl season ranked.

2012 MAC> 2013 AAC

How's the 2013 MAC?

6 bowl eligible teams with a 7th added when CMU beats EMU this week. As of now the AAC has 4 bowl eligible teams with SMU needing to beat either Houston® or UCF(H) to be eligible. Rutgers has an easier path to eligibility facing UConn and USF.
MAC also has more 8 win teams (4) than any other G5 conference and of course NIU is the highest BCS ranked G5 program(14) so I'd say the 2013 MAC while not up to 2012 performance is having a great season

(11-25-2013 06:06 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Top of the AAC is good, the bottom was bad EVERY year. ECU coming in next year, looking good at 9-2 with
wins over UNC and NC State.

I fixed. It for you. No need to thank me.

(11-28-2013 11:30 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 11:25 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:18 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:50 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 05:36 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

Don't get me wrong...I like the ECU add. I actually think ECU can become a major player in the league. I also like the Navy add. Memphis at least brings basketball. Tulsa, Tulane, SMU???

What are the Tulane's in the ACC?

UNC and NCSU are the Tulane's of the ACC, didn't they both get punched in the mouth by a C-USA team in ECU?

UVA also lost to Ball State by 21. The ACC has 2 very solid programs in FSU & Clemson, a few average teams (Miami, BC) and alot of junk in the trunk (Pitt, Syracuse, UNC, NC ST, UVA, Maryland)

Don't use UVA. They haven't won a conference game all season but somehow found a way to beat BYU.

Clemson and FSU are more than just solid.

ACC already has 10 maybe 11 bowl teams this year. What more do you want?

3 teams get in by the skin of their teeth

1) Pitt 6-6 with wins over wins over NM & Old Dominion very weak
2) MD 6 wins including UConn, FL Intl & Old Dominion. very weak
3) UNC losses to ECU by 24 and goes bowling, must I say more? Wins over Old Domnion & Mid TN St
4) BC gets 7 wins but 3 are over Villanova, Army & NM St, very weak.

10 out of 14 in bowls is not that hard with OOC scheduling like that.

FSU should play in the national title game. Clemson is a solid program, we will see how good they are today vs South Carolina.

With the Fresno loss yesterday, a Huskie win in the MAC title game over BGSU and NIU will be Fiesta Bowling!

Miko equals loser troll on this thread. Thee ACC is not that much different as far as the lower tier teams.