(01-12-2014 06:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 03:58 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 02:04 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm representing the facts as best I know them.

The only facts that matter when comparing the 2 leagues: AAC basketball is a hell of a lot better. UCF just won the Fiesta Bowl. And the AAC has 7 of the last 9 CUSA football champs and 14 of the last 18 division champions.

Who is talking basketball? We were talking about next football season.

With UCF losing their QB, do you really think they will repeat as AAC champions and beat a top 10 team in the access bowl?... I didn't think so either.

The AAC lost Louisville and Rutgers. It's just not the conference it was supposed to be. It's just a different configuration of C-USA,... only with U Conn and Temple.

When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 media money,... we were called delusional.
When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 bowl deals,... we were called delusional.

The AAC fans that still believe they are closer to the P5s then they are to the G5,... are the ones being delusional. And, I'll stick to my statement. Any conference could grab the access spot next season. The AAC doesn't have the inside track to it.

So, using your own logic, couldn't it be said CUSA is now just a new version of the Sunbelt--but with Marshall, Rice, UAB, and S Miss (along with some FCS startups) added? Out of 14 teams, only UAB and S Miss are original CUSA members. Using your own thought process, CUSA isn't CUSA anymore. Why you can see so clearly the dilution of the AAC but are blind to the same dynamic within your own conference is curious.

Frankly, I don't think most reasonable AAC fans (including myself) really think we are close to being part of the P5. I do think the AAC is closer to the P5 than CUSA is---for whatever that's worth.

In terms of the tv contract money expected, I think the conference AAC folks thought could maybe get as much as 10 million a school ceased to exist in September of 2012. That conference had Louisville, Rutgers, Boise, SDSU, the C-7, Notre Dame, and hopefully a couple of additional western schools (Fresno, BYU, AF were all possibilities). There was no ECU or Tulane. You and I certainly can agree---that was not the same conference as todays AAC.

(01-12-2014 06:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 03:58 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 02:04 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm representing the facts as best I know them.

The only facts that matter when comparing the 2 leagues: AAC basketball is a hell of a lot better. UCF just won the Fiesta Bowl. And the AAC has 7 of the last 9 CUSA football champs and 14 of the last 18 division champions.

Who is talking basketball? We were talking about next football season.

With UCF losing their QB, do you really think they will repeat as AAC champions and beat a top 10 team in the access bowl?... I didn't think so either.

The AAC lost Louisville and Rutgers. It's just not the conference it was supposed to be. It's just a different configuration of C-USA,... only with U Conn and Temple.

When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 media money,... we were called delusional.
When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 bowl deals,... we were called delusional.

The AAC fans that still believe they are closer to the P5s then they are to the G5,... are the ones being delusional. And, I'll stick to my statement. Any conference could grab the access spot next season. The AAC doesn't have the inside track to it.

I totally agree UCF will never be good at football because Bortles is going to the NFL. Honestly, I think we should just hang it up perhaps dismantle the program. It's not like the can capitalize on their successes or like they have the second youngest team in college football. I doubt we ever beat a top 10 program in the future.

(01-12-2014 06:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 06:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 03:58 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 02:04 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm representing the facts as best I know them.

The only facts that matter when comparing the 2 leagues: AAC basketball is a hell of a lot better. UCF just won the Fiesta Bowl. And the AAC has 7 of the last 9 CUSA football champs and 14 of the last 18 division champions.

Who is talking basketball? We were talking about next football season.

With UCF losing their QB, do you really think they will repeat as AAC champions and beat a top 10 team in the access bowl?... I didn't think so either.

The AAC lost Louisville and Rutgers. It's just not the conference it was supposed to be. It's just a different configuration of C-USA,... only with U Conn and Temple.

When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 media money,... we were called delusional.
When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 bowl deals,... we were called delusional.

The AAC fans that still believe they are closer to the P5s then they are to the G5,... are the ones being delusional. And, I'll stick to my statement. Any conference could grab the access spot next season. The AAC doesn't have the inside track to it.

So, using your own logic, couldn't it be said CUSA is now just a new version of the Sunbelt--but with Marshall, Rice, UAB, and S Miss (along with some FCS startups) added? Out of 14 teams, only UAB and S Miss are original CUSA members. Using your own thought process, CUSA isn't CUSA anymore. Why you can see so clearly the dilution of the AAC but are blind to the same dynamic within your own conference is curious.

Frankly, I don't think most reasonable AAC fans (including myself) really think we are close to being part of the P5. I do think the AAC is closer to the P5 than CUSA is---for whatever that's worth.

In terms of the tv contract money expected, I think the conference AAC folks thought could maybe get as much as 10 million a school ceased to exist in September of 2012. That conference had Louisville, Rutgers, Boise, SDSU, the C-7, Notre Dame, and hopefully a couple of additional western schools (Fresno, BYU, AF were all possibilities). There was no ECU or Tulane. You and I certainly can agree---that was not the same conference as todays AAC.

I don't see it like that. Less the half of next seasons C-USA teams will have been former Sun Belt teams, and that is not a majority.

Five of the teams, (Rice, Marshall, UTEP, Southern Miss, and UAB) have been in C-USA for a while. Five teams have moved over from the Sun Belt (North Texas, MTSU, FAU, FIU, and WKU). Two teams came from the WAC (LA Tech & UTSA). C-USA will also be adding ODU from the FCS. C-USA has a more diverse representation then just saying it's a new Sun Belt. I think it's a new smarter version of C-USA. The regional rivalries, media markets, large universities, and bowl ties make it a great conference for growing the C-USA brand.

Next season the AAC will feature 9 former C-USA football teams in a conference with 11 teams. It feels more like C-USA split and the AAC version added some of their old C-USA conference mates, with U Conn, and Temple. And, it seems to be a more Eastern leaning version. C-USA 3.0 seems a little more regionally balanced.

Just my opinion. Can't wait until August, when we can see what our new line-ups can do.

(01-12-2014 08:06 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 06:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 06:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 03:58 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 02:04 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm representing the facts as best I know them.

The only facts that matter when comparing the 2 leagues: AAC basketball is a hell of a lot better. UCF just won the Fiesta Bowl. And the AAC has 7 of the last 9 CUSA football champs and 14 of the last 18 division champions.

Who is talking basketball? We were talking about next football season.

With UCF losing their QB, do you really think they will repeat as AAC champions and beat a top 10 team in the access bowl?... I didn't think so either.

The AAC lost Louisville and Rutgers. It's just not the conference it was supposed to be. It's just a different configuration of C-USA,... only with U Conn and Temple.

When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 media money,... we were called delusional.
When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 bowl deals,... we were called delusional.

The AAC fans that still believe they are closer to the P5s then they are to the G5,... are the ones being delusional. And, I'll stick to my statement. Any conference could grab the access spot next season. The AAC doesn't have the inside track to it.

So, using your own logic, couldn't it be said CUSA is now just a new version of the Sunbelt--but with Marshall, Rice, UAB, and S Miss (along with some FCS startups) added? Out of 14 teams, only UAB and S Miss are original CUSA members. Using your own thought process, CUSA isn't CUSA anymore. Why you can see so clearly the dilution of the AAC but are blind to the same dynamic within your own conference is curious.

Frankly, I don't think most reasonable AAC fans (including myself) really think we are close to being part of the P5. I do think the AAC is closer to the P5 than CUSA is---for whatever that's worth.

In terms of the tv contract money expected, I think the conference AAC folks thought could maybe get as much as 10 million a school ceased to exist in September of 2012. That conference had Louisville, Rutgers, Boise, SDSU, the C-7, Notre Dame, and hopefully a couple of additional western schools (Fresno, BYU, AF were all possibilities). There was no ECU or Tulane. You and I certainly can agree---that was not the same conference as todays AAC.

I don't see it like that. Less the half of next seasons C-USA teams will have been former Sun Belt teams, and that is not a majority.

Five of the teams, (Rice, Marshall, UTEP, Southern Miss, and UAB) have been in C-USA for a while. Five teams have moved over from the Sun Belt (North Texas, MTSU, FAU, FIU, and WKU). Two teams came from the WAC (LA Tech & UTSA). C-USA will also be adding ODU from the FCS. C-USA has a more diverse representation then just saying it's a new Sun Belt. I think it's a new smarter version of C-USA. The regional rivalries, media markets, large universities, and bowl ties make it a great conference for growing the C-USA brand.

Next season the AAC will feature 9 former C-USA football teams in a conference with 11 teams. It feels more like C-USA split and the AAC version added some of their old C-USA conference mates, with U Conn, and Temple. And, it seems to be a more Eastern leaning version. C-USA 3.0 seems a little more regionally balanced.

Just my opinion. Can't wait until August, when we can see what our new line-ups can do.

If nine of 11 schools in the AAC are CUSA schools---doesn't that pretty much mean CUSA isn't CUSA anymore? Only 2 of 14 schools in CUSA are original CUSA schools. Only 5 of 14 have been in CUSA longer than 1 year. Realignment has dealt CUSA, the AAC, and the WAC tough hands---everything else is just spin.

(01-11-2014 10:49 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 08:46 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 09:46 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 03:13 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  The AAC champ is almost always going to be in one of the big bowls considering how bad CUSA, Sunbelt, and MAC are. That will be good enough until they expand the playoff.

For now, the AAC and MWC seem to have a slight edge over C-USA on the field. But don't be mistaken. If you look at how the teams that will be in the AAC finished this season, only UCF separated themselves from the top teams in C-USA, and they lose most of their best players. Maybe they can reload. I don't know the team that well. Chances are there will be a drop off. The MWC is also trending down. Boise isn't the team they used to be. Fresno didn't live up to expectations either.

C-USA is not bad. Just like the AAC, 3 of our returning teams finished this season with 9 wins or more. The MWC only had 2 teams do that. As a conference we went 3-3 in our bowl games, posting wins over new BIG10 team Maryland and a blowout of MWC's UNLV, which was our only bowl match-up with the MWC.

When looking at bowl records and assigning them to next seasons line-ups thing look interesting.

C-USA
2-2
Wins- Marshall, North Texas
Loses- Rice, MTSU

AAC
2-3
Wins- #12 UCF, ECU
Loses- Houston, Cincinnati, Tulane

MWC
3-3
Wins- SDSU, Utah State, Colorado State
Loses- Fresno State, Boise State, UNLV

Of all the teams in the 3 conferences, only UCF of the AAC finished the season ranked in the coaches poll, while Cincinnati and ECU received votes. In the MWC Fresno received votes. In C-USA Marshall and North Texas received votes.

I'd say starting next season, any conference could win the G5 spot.

Your assuming that USF, Uconn, Temple, Tulsa are going to remain as bad as they are. Furthermore, conference USA faced absolute jokes compared to what the AAC had in bowl games. Your conference champion got absolutely blown out by a bad SEC team. The Sun Belt, MWC, MAC, and CUSA are close to each other. The AAC is going to be more on the level of the Big 10 and ACC when they get their feet wet.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing out the current reality of what the AAC will be dealing with starting next season. Many of the programs that will be paying in the AAC next season are not of the same quality as they have been in the past. Could they get better by next season? Sure, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Aside from the UCF win over Baylor, I don't see a great difference in the quality of bowl wins by the teams that will be in both conferences next season. I doubt the media and opinion makers do either. Rice and Houston both got beat down by SEC teams, and I don't think Houston is that much better then Rice. When they play this season Houston only won the game by 5 points. Actually, after the UCF win, ECU had the best bowl performance of the teams that will be in the AAC next season, but they couldn't win the eastern division of C-USA this year.

C-USA
W- Marshall 31 Maryland (ACC) 20- Military Bowl
W- North Texas 36 UNLV (MWC) 14 Heart of Dallas Bowl
L- Rice 7 Miss State (SEC) 44- Liberty Bowl
L- Middle Tennessee State University 6 Navy (Ind.) 24- Armed Forces Bowl

AAC
W- UCF 52 Baylor (BIG12) 42- Fiesta Bowl
W- ECU 37 Ohio (MAC) 20- Beef O' Brady's Bowl
L- Cincinnati 17 North Carolina (ACC) 39- Belk Bowl
L- Houston 24 Vanderbilt (SEC) 41- BBVA Compass Bowl
L- Tulane 21 University of Louisiana- Lafayette (Sun Belt) 24- New Orleans Bowl

Saying that the new AAC will be closer to the Big10 or ACC seems like a very large assumption based on the facts. The great thing is we will all find out where each conference stands in August. Based on what I've seen from the teams that will be in the various G5 conferences next season, I like C-USA's chances at the access bowl. I think they are as good as any.

I love the changing of teams to match an argument. I don't care what Louisville does in the future but they were an AAC team this year. ECU and Tulane were conference USA teams.

The AAC played North Carolina, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Notre Dame, Miami. If you want to live in your own delusions go ahead and we will keep laughing as you remain being one of the worst football conferences in FBS.

(01-12-2014 06:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 03:58 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 02:04 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm representing the facts as best I know them.

The only facts that matter when comparing the 2 leagues: AAC basketball is a hell of a lot better. UCF just won the Fiesta Bowl. And the AAC has 7 of the last 9 CUSA football champs and 14 of the last 18 division champions.

Who is talking basketball? We were talking about next football season.

With UCF losing their QB, do you really think they will repeat as AAC champions and beat a top 10 team in the access bowl?... I didn't think so either.

The AAC lost Louisville and Rutgers. It's just not the conference it was supposed to be. It's just a different configuration of C-USA,... only with U Conn and Temple.

When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 media money,... we were called delusional.
When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 bowl deals,... we were called delusional.

The AAC fans that still believe they are closer to the P5s then they are to the G5,... are the ones being delusional. And, I'll stick to my statement. Any conference could grab the access spot next season. The AAC doesn't have the inside track to it.

You're correct, any G5 conference can theoretically grab the Access spot.

I don't know who said the AAC would get P5 TV money but yeah.... those folks were delusional. FWIW, the AAC does have more P5 bowl deals than any of the G5 leagues.

Sorry to break it to you but basketball is a huge part of G5 revenue and cannot be ignored. not sure why you think it can.

(01-11-2014 02:11 AM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  Reading lately and wondering if the AAC will take a serious look at UMass. then started thinking does it really matter? It seems the AAC is going to be left behind too. Is there a strategy? I always wondered if the power 5 tried to split completely from the NCAA there may be some problems with the universities retaining their not for profit status which is a big deal. Either way i'm pretty convinced that no matter how you look at it the AAC is stuck with the bottom tier, what is the plan for moving up?

Why would we add UMass? I mean that seriously. There is no TV audience, the football program is terrible and potentially disbanding within 3 years, and the school gets no support from the state. Adding UMass would be (almost) as bad as adding Tulsa).

(01-13-2014 11:35 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(01-11-2014 02:11 AM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  Reading lately and wondering if the AAC will take a serious look at UMass. then started thinking does it really matter? It seems the AAC is going to be left behind too. Is there a strategy? I always wondered if the power 5 tried to split completely from the NCAA there may be some problems with the universities retaining their not for profit status which is a big deal. Either way i'm pretty convinced that no matter how you look at it the AAC is stuck with the bottom tier, what is the plan for moving up?

Why would we add UMass? I mean that seriously. There is no TV audience, the football program is terrible and potentially disbanding within 3 years, and the school gets no support from the state. Adding UMass would be (almost) as bad as adding Tulsa).

He says this until Tulsa starts stringing together consistent winning seasons

The AAC lost its' bowls to P5, not G5 conferences. They did, however, show some leverage with bottom tier bowls. The Military, Hawaii and St. Pete bowls chose the AAC over previous ties to CUSA (1 full and 2 half slots). St. Pete surprised me most as it was founded by the Big East and CUSA. Technically, CUSA lost this half slot to the ACC, but the bowl chose to retain the AAC over CUSA full time. This speaks to how these bowls evaluate "attractiveness." The number of bowls each conference is able to sign also demonstrates relative desirability. The AAC is the only G5 conference with primary slots for over 50% of the conference (4 out of 6 years, the other 2 are right at 50%). Also lost in the shuffle is the fact that the strongest conference gets almost as much money at the one sending a team to the access bowl. The AAC is in good shape there as well...looking at composite rankings.

(01-12-2014 08:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 08:06 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 06:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 06:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 03:58 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The only facts that matter when comparing the 2 leagues: AAC basketball is a hell of a lot better. UCF just won the Fiesta Bowl. And the AAC has 7 of the last 9 CUSA football champs and 14 of the last 18 division champions.

Who is talking basketball? We were talking about next football season.

With UCF losing their QB, do you really think they will repeat as AAC champions and beat a top 10 team in the access bowl?... I didn't think so either.

The AAC lost Louisville and Rutgers. It's just not the conference it was supposed to be. It's just a different configuration of C-USA,... only with U Conn and Temple.

When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 media money,... we were called delusional.
When C-USA fans said the AAC wouldn't get P5 bowl deals,... we were called delusional.

The AAC fans that still believe they are closer to the P5s then they are to the G5,... are the ones being delusional. And, I'll stick to my statement. Any conference could grab the access spot next season. The AAC doesn't have the inside track to it.

So, using your own logic, couldn't it be said CUSA is now just a new version of the Sunbelt--but with Marshall, Rice, UAB, and S Miss (along with some FCS startups) added? Out of 14 teams, only UAB and S Miss are original CUSA members. Using your own thought process, CUSA isn't CUSA anymore. Why you can see so clearly the dilution of the AAC but are blind to the same dynamic within your own conference is curious.

Frankly, I don't think most reasonable AAC fans (including myself) really think we are close to being part of the P5. I do think the AAC is closer to the P5 than CUSA is---for whatever that's worth.

In terms of the tv contract money expected, I think the conference AAC folks thought could maybe get as much as 10 million a school ceased to exist in September of 2012. That conference had Louisville, Rutgers, Boise, SDSU, the C-7, Notre Dame, and hopefully a couple of additional western schools (Fresno, BYU, AF were all possibilities). There was no ECU or Tulane. You and I certainly can agree---that was not the same conference as todays AAC.

I don't see it like that. Less the half of next seasons C-USA teams will have been former Sun Belt teams, and that is not a majority.

Five of the teams, (Rice, Marshall, UTEP, Southern Miss, and UAB) have been in C-USA for a while. Five teams have moved over from the Sun Belt (North Texas, MTSU, FAU, FIU, and WKU). Two teams came from the WAC (LA Tech & UTSA). C-USA will also be adding ODU from the FCS. C-USA has a more diverse representation then just saying it's a new Sun Belt. I think it's a new smarter version of C-USA. The regional rivalries, media markets, large universities, and bowl ties make it a great conference for growing the C-USA brand.

Next season the AAC will feature 9 former C-USA football teams in a conference with 11 teams. It feels more like C-USA split and the AAC version added some of their old C-USA conference mates, with U Conn, and Temple. And, it seems to be a more Eastern leaning version. C-USA 3.0 seems a little more regionally balanced.

Just my opinion. Can't wait until August, when we can see what our new line-ups can do.

If nine of 11 schools in the AAC are CUSA schools---doesn't that pretty much mean CUSA isn't CUSA anymore? Only 2 of 14 schools in CUSA are original CUSA schools. Only 5 of 14 have been in CUSA longer than 1 year. Realignment has dealt CUSA, the AAC, and the WAC tough hands---everything else is just spin.

WKU, MTSU, FAU, FIU, UNT and La Tech are former Sun Belt football members. ODU, UNCC and UAB are former members for sports other than football. That's 9 of 14. UTEP, UTSA and Rice (as well as La Tech) moved over from WAC, Marshall from MAC. Only Southern Miss has been in CUSA for football since inception and isn't a former Sun Belt member. Maybe CUSA should just take the Sun Belt name, AAC take the CUSA name and Sun Belt take AAC.

Hell, almost half of the ACC came from the Big East conference: UL, ND, Pitt, Cuse, BC, VT, Miami

FSU & GT came from the Metro.

I think UMass to the AAC is a very good idea and should've happened by now honestly. As mentioned elsewhere, Army would be a great football only partner along with a full sports membership for UMass but if the USMA still won't move to the AAC then maybe try to pull in Univ. of Buffalo as a full sports member along with the Minutemen.

UMass and SUNY Buffalo add some needed, true northeastern media exposure and are super high quality, flagship academic institutions with solid research rankings (university presidents and boards love that).

As far as the feeding more mouths argument, that's nonsense. The AAC makes diddly squat, period. The conference should look to build its brand along the east coast, it should be about adding quality schools with solid media market exposure. The ESPN exposure the AAC will enjoy is the most important aspect of the AAC media deal, not the money.

UMass and Army (football only) or UMass and SUNY Buffalo only help separate the American from the other G5.

(01-12-2014 09:38 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  We know the SEC is a very strong conference, and no team out of C-USA or the AAC would fair well in those bowl. Again, we are talking about the teams that will be in the AAC next season. In those standings Houston finishes behind ECU, which couldn't win their division.

AAC
1. UCF (12-1)- loses most of their players, including their QB
2. ECU (10-3)- finished 3rd in C-USA
3. Cincinatti (9-4)- lost their bowl to the same North Carolina team ECU beat
4. Houston (8-5)- dominated by an SEC team, just like Rice
5. Tulane (7-6)- beaten by ULL in their bowl game

C-USA
1. Rice (10-4)- dominated by an SEC team just like Houston
2. Marshal (10-4)- beat ECU for their division title
3. North Texas (9-4)
4. MTSU (8-5)
5. WKU (8-4)- beat Navy, and Arkansas St., but ASU went to Go Daddy Bowl.
6. UTSA (7-5)- still in transition, but beat Tulane
7. FAU (6-6)- 2-1 versus future AAC teams

I really don't see much difference between the conferences.

Point of contention: We lose 6 people on offense (with 3 O-linemen with considerable experience returning, a senior WR transfer from UAB, William Stanback at RB) and 1 DT on defense. We don't lose "most" of our players. If anything we lose considerably more NEXT year, where most of WR contributors and half of our defense are gone.

(01-13-2014 07:40 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  I think UMass to the AAC is a very good idea and should've happened by now honestly. As mentioned elsewhere, Army would be a great football only partner along with a full sports membership for UMass but if the USMA still won't move to the AAC then maybe try to pull in Univ. of Buffalo as a full sports member along with the Minutemen.

UMass and SUNY Buffalo add some needed, true northeastern media exposure and are super high quality, flagship academic institutions with solid research rankings (university presidents and boards love that).

As far as the feeding more mouths argument, that's nonsense. The AAC makes diddly squat, period. The conference should look to build its brand along the east coast, it should be about adding quality schools with solid media market exposure. The ESPN exposure the AAC will enjoy is the most important aspect of the AAC media deal, not the money.

UMass and Army (football only) or UMass and SUNY Buffalo only help separate the American from the other G5.

Both are big state schools in relatively untapped areas, but I'm not quite sold on UB yet. I think Rice has a good chance even with market duplication, albeit a giant market. It is an outstanding school and has some friends (Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa) already in the conference.

It will be interesting to see what they do with the divisions. I don't know what to do on NCAA 14 once the 2015 season starts!

Any word on what the plans are??

UConn
Temple
Cincinnati
ECU
UCF
USF

Navy
Tulane
Memphis
Tulsa
Houston
SMU

(01-13-2014 08:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 09:38 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  We know the SEC is a very strong conference, and no team out of C-USA or the AAC would fair well in those bowl. Again, we are talking about the teams that will be in the AAC next season. In those standings Houston finishes behind ECU, which couldn't win their division.

AAC
1. UCF (12-1)- loses most of their players, including their QB
2. ECU (10-3)- finished 3rd in C-USA
3. Cincinatti (9-4)- lost their bowl to the same North Carolina team ECU beat
4. Houston (8-5)- dominated by an SEC team, just like Rice
5. Tulane (7-6)- beaten by ULL in their bowl game

C-USA
1. Rice (10-4)- dominated by an SEC team just like Houston
2. Marshal (10-4)- beat ECU for their division title
3. North Texas (9-4)
4. MTSU (8-5)
5. WKU (8-4)- beat Navy, and Arkansas St., but ASU went to Go Daddy Bowl.
6. UTSA (7-5)- still in transition, but beat Tulane
7. FAU (6-6)- 2-1 versus future AAC teams

I really don't see much difference between the conferences.

Point of contention: We lose 6 people on offense (with 3 O-linemen with considerable experience returning, a senior WR transfer from UAB, William Stanback at RB) and 1 DT on defense. We don't lose "most" of our players. If anything we lose considerably more NEXT year, where most of WR contributors and half of our defense are gone.

My bad. I didn't realize it was only six. Thanks for correcting that. My real point was that you had a great QB, and he won't be easy to replace.

(01-13-2014 08:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  It will be interesting to see what they do with the divisions. I don't know what to do on NCAA 14 once the 2015 season starts!

Any word on what the plans are??

UConn
Temple
Cincinnati
ECU
UCF
USF

Navy
Tulane
Memphis
Tulsa
Houston
SMU

This is what I'm expecting, a quasi-East / West split with Navy wanting to play the Private schools every year.

(01-13-2014 08:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:40 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  I think UMass to the AAC is a very good idea and should've happened by now honestly. As mentioned elsewhere, Army would be a great football only partner along with a full sports membership for UMass but if the USMA still won't move to the AAC then maybe try to pull in Univ. of Buffalo as a full sports member along with the Minutemen.

UMass and SUNY Buffalo add some needed, true northeastern media exposure and are super high quality, flagship academic institutions with solid research rankings (university presidents and boards love that).

As far as the feeding more mouths argument, that's nonsense. The AAC makes diddly squat, period. The conference should look to build its brand along the east coast, it should be about adding quality schools with solid media market exposure. The ESPN exposure the AAC will enjoy is the most important aspect of the AAC media deal, not the money.

UMass and Army (football only) or UMass and SUNY Buffalo only help separate the American from the other G5.

Both are big state schools in relatively untapped areas, but I'm not quite sold on UB yet. I think Rice has a good chance even with market duplication, albeit a giant market. It is an outstanding school and has some friends (Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa) already in the conference.

I can understand the Rice angle, but as you already pointed out there's already a program in Houston and Rice is followed by far fewer people than the small following UH currently "enjoys". If we're talking about markets, Houston is already covered and the Rice Owls would add nothing.

Additionally, I don't think that conference needs another tiny private school. All of them are great academic institutions without a doubt, but should really be part of a southern Ivy League to be honest.

(01-13-2014 11:25 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 08:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 07:40 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  I think UMass to the AAC is a very good idea and should've happened by now honestly. As mentioned elsewhere, Army would be a great football only partner along with a full sports membership for UMass but if the USMA still won't move to the AAC then maybe try to pull in Univ. of Buffalo as a full sports member along with the Minutemen.

UMass and SUNY Buffalo add some needed, true northeastern media exposure and are super high quality, flagship academic institutions with solid research rankings (university presidents and boards love that).

As far as the feeding more mouths argument, that's nonsense. The AAC makes diddly squat, period. The conference should look to build its brand along the east coast, it should be about adding quality schools with solid media market exposure. The ESPN exposure the AAC will enjoy is the most important aspect of the AAC media deal, not the money.

UMass and Army (football only) or UMass and SUNY Buffalo only help separate the American from the other G5.

Both are big state schools in relatively untapped areas, but I'm not quite sold on UB yet. I think Rice has a good chance even with market duplication, albeit a giant market. It is an outstanding school and has some friends (Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa) already in the conference.

I can understand the Rice angle, but as you already pointed out there's already a program in Houston and Rice is followed by far fewer people than the small following UH currently "enjoys". If we're talking about markets, Houston is already covered and the Rice Owls would add nothing.

Additionally, I don't think that conference needs another tiny private school. All of them are great academic institutions without a doubt, but should really be part of a southern Ivy League to be honest.

From a local point of view, I like the idea of adding Rice, but the fact is---they duplicate a market and adding another small fan base private probably is not going to help the AAC have greater appeal to bowls. Larger state schools like Texas State, UTSA, UMass, Arky State, ULaLa, etc might be higher ceiling long term additions.

UMass is the only true state flagship in fbs left out there that fits right in with the AAC's current membership. Basketball would only improve being affiliated with UConn, Temple, Memphis, etc. And if football can get to a level of bowling regularly, i can see them drawing 35k and it'll easily go down as the best addition of Aresco's tenure thus far. People throwing out Rice have to be joking. Sure they won the Sun.. err CUSA this year, but guys as far as attendance, competitiveness, etc. goes, that is the best of Rice we're going to see. They are what they are, and no bowls are going to be jumping at the opportunity to grab a tiny private school that struggles to get 20k in home attendance, no matter what city they're from.

(01-13-2014 11:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  From a local point of view, I like the idea of adding Rice, but the fact is---they duplicate a market and adding another small fan base private probably is not going to help the AAC have greater appeal to bowls. Larger state schools like Texas State, UTSA, UMass, Arky State, ULaLa, etc might be higher ceiling long term additions.

I wouldn't put UMass in the same class as those other state schools. The others are fine public universities, but not in the same league as UMass or UB. Sure they all compete in G5 football conferences but that's about all they have in common.

If the AAC added TXST, Ark State, ULL or UTSA it would be because the conference lost 4 of its current members. I actually think the MWC should have taken a chance on TXST and UTSA when it lost out on the UH and SMU sweepstakes.