(04-12-2014 11:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:40 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:46 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 07:36 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  Amazing.

If UCF gets beat down in its BCS bowl, UConn (M/W) don't win the championships, SMU loses in the opening round of the NIT and Houston doesn't sniff the Top 10 in baseball, all the chatter on these boards would be from fans of other teams/conferences saying "see we told you the American sucked and didn't deserve "consideration" as a f'n power conference.

But let the fans of this conference (at least some of us) bask for some period of time in the accomplishments thus far (and I remind you it's only Year One) after the conference was just about throttled almost into oblivion and no matter what the conference has accomplished, and we're homers.

I don't think any of us really wear homer colored glasses thinking that this conference is the equivalent of an "SEC", but I do think there are many of us that think this conference has an immense amount of potential as long as schools stay committed to competing at the highest levels and fans continue to support their athletic programs.

Thanks for the post MAIZE !!

That was the point....not really talking about TV Deal...Contract Bowl etc....etc...all I'm saying is on the National Stage whether it is in it BCS Bowl Game or in the Men's and Women Basketball Tournament the Top of the League as performed.

I'm am ACC now BUT I will always give credit were credit is due and the AAC as far as On the Court/Field Performance does not have to take a backseat to anyone...

You credit the AAC with three "big time" performance outcomes: UConn winning the women's basketball title, UConn winning the men's basketball title, and UCF winning a BCS game. But, there is nothing at all surprising about UConn winning basketball titles, male or female, they do that all the time. Therefore, there is little in the way of a connection between those achievements and the AAC.

Put it this way: If Duke had been transferred from the ACC to C-USA, but won the national title in basketball anyway, who would be surprised? Nobody. And would it mean that the C-USA was suddenly a "big time performer" in men's basketball? Of course not.

The only thing that would be reinforced would be something we already know, and it has nothing to do with conference: Duke is a big-time basketball program.

Dude....major fail on that point about UConn Men Title...in case you forgot they didn't finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the American Regular Season...they finished 4th...they didn't win the AAC Tournament...they lost by Double Digits...as a matter of fact they lost the Regular Season Final by over 30 points...their title was Not Expected..

Didn't UConn finish ninth in the Big East three years ago and yet win the title anyway? Yes they did.

UConn is a big-time program so it's never a surprise when they make a tournament run, just like it wasn't a surprise when #8 seed Kentucky did the same.

They finished 9th but they won the BIG EAST Tournament and had major momentum and went into the 2011 Tournament as a #2 Seed...they had no such momentum going into 2014...

(04-12-2014 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:15 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  How many leagues can say that a team that wasn't their champion won the NC. That speaks volume about a league's strength

It's actually quite common for a school to not win their league but win the national title.

The AAC was a good basketball league this season, around #7 RPI and with four very deserving tournament teams. Quite respectable, and we knew it would be, since we were essentially half of the old Big East, which was a mighty basketball league. We have every reason to be proud of our basketball season and to think we will be competitive going forward, even losing Louisville.

Really? Care to look it up. Outside of a power conference I think you wouldn't find one. Which means the AAC is a power conference in basketball

(04-12-2014 12:21 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:15 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  How many leagues can say that a team that wasn't their champion won the NC. That speaks volume about a league's strength

It's actually quite common for a school to not win their league but win the national title.

The AAC was a good basketball league this season, around #7 RPI and with four very deserving tournament teams. Quite respectable, and we knew it would be, since we were essentially half of the old Big East, which was a mighty basketball league. We have every reason to be proud of our basketball season and to think we will be competitive going forward, even losing Louisville.

Really? Care to look it up. Outside of a power conference I think you wouldn't find one. Which means the AAC is a power conference in basketball

In basketball, if you put 4 or so teams in the tournament pretty consistently you are doing good enough to be in the top tier. We are in that group.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-11-2014 03:58 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 03:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 03:14 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:37 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  According to who? Source or is this your opinion. I have never heard a credible source other than message board posters say power is tied to wealth. To me power means strong. And performance on the field is strong for the AAC.

Don't let UCF beating Baylor fool you about that.

Sure quo, whatever you say

All of the objective indices show that we were a bad football conference last year, a real disappointment.

And that was with Louisville, the team that carried our banner nationally most of the year and had the best OOC results, the only kind that count.

You can live in an AAC-homer sunshine land if you like, but you are delusional if you think anyone outside of AAC campuses thinks we were a good football league in our first year.

Oh please... You spout so much nonsense in the AAC board its becoming unreadable now.

This board passed "unreadable" a few hundred miles ago.

(04-12-2014 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:15 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  How many leagues can say that a team that wasn't their champion won the NC. That speaks volume about a league's strength

It's actually quite common for a school to not win their league but win the national title.

?

You have UConn in 2014 and 2011. That's pretty much it in recent memory. You have a few teams who such as UK in in 2012, UNC in 2009 and 2005,Syracuse in 2003, and Maryland in 2002 to name a few, who won their league title, but did not win their league tournaments. But you have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a non-UConn team to win a national championship who did not win their conference, as 5th place PAC 10 team Arizona beat 2nd place UK in overtime.

I find that hardly common, for anyone other than UConn.

(04-11-2014 06:05 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)megadrone Wrote:  well Power is in terms of the following:

1. Can the conference regularly have a team competing for the MNC?
2. Does the conference have strong anchor bowls?
3. Does the conference have (perceived) value on TV?

ON the field results weren't considered for the duration of Big East 2.0 -- it was the perception that the league wouldn't last without Miami and Va Tech. I do think that the Big East/American is weak in having teams that can regularly compete for the MNC, but presently if you're not Ohio State or in the SEC you're not going to do that anyway.

Power= suck on field, make $$ on TV. It is the Big 10 way.

About money the big boys don't want to share the sandbox with us we gotta keep giving them a bloody mouth in the big balls and then they'll start second guessing the decision to eliminate the p6 1


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-12-2014 04:49 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 06:05 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)megadrone Wrote:  well Power is in terms of the following:

1. Can the conference regularly have a team competing for the MNC?
2. Does the conference have strong anchor bowls?
3. Does the conference have (perceived) value on TV?

ON the field results weren't considered for the duration of Big East 2.0 -- it was the perception that the league wouldn't last without Miami and Va Tech. I do think that the Big East/American is weak in having teams that can regularly compete for the MNC, but presently if you're not Ohio State or in the SEC you're not going to do that anyway.

Power= suck on field, make $$ on TV. It is the Big 10 way.

About money the big boys don't want to share the sandbox with us we gotta keep giving them a bloody mouth in the big balls and then they'll start second guessing the decision to eliminate the p6 1


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

We gotta just keep beating up the big boys then they
give us a chance they get 20 mil. We get 5 it will never change they greedy


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-12-2014 02:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:15 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  How many leagues can say that a team that wasn't their champion won the NC. That speaks volume about a league's strength

It's actually quite common for a school to not win their league but win the national title.

?

You have UConn in 2014 and 2011. That's pretty much it in recent memory. You have a few teams who such as UK in in 2012, UNC in 2009 and 2005,Syracuse in 2003, and Maryland in 2002 to name a few, who won their league title, but did not win their league tournaments. But you have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a non-UConn team to win a national championship who did not win their conference, as 5th place PAC 10 team Arizona beat 2nd place UK in overtime.

I find that hardly common, for anyone other than UConn.

As a longtime BE fan, I find it bizarre for anyone to say the tourney champion is not the league champion. In fact, the trophies state pretty clearly that the Tourney winner is the BE Champion, while the regular season winner is the BE Regular Season Champion. And the reason for this is eminently logical. With 16 teams and no round robin, the BE regular season had all sorts of imbalances.

In hoops the AAC is in the mix with the other 'power' conferences...


in football we are not

(04-12-2014 02:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:15 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  How many leagues can say that a team that wasn't their champion won the NC. That speaks volume about a league's strength

It's actually quite common for a school to not win their league but win the national title.

?

You have UConn in 2014 and 2011. That's pretty much it in recent memory. You have a few teams who such as UK in in 2012, UNC in 2009 and 2005,Syracuse in 2003, and Maryland in 2002 to name a few, who won their league title, but did not win their league tournaments. But you have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a non-UConn team to win a national championship who did not win their conference, as 5th place PAC 10 team Arizona beat 2nd place UK in overtime.

I find that hardly common, for anyone other than UConn.

2014, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1997 ... that seems pretty common for the past 15 or so years.

(04-12-2014 05:46 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 02:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:15 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  How many leagues can say that a team that wasn't their champion won the NC. That speaks volume about a league's strength

It's actually quite common for a school to not win their league but win the national title.

?

You have UConn in 2014 and 2011. That's pretty much it in recent memory. You have a few teams who such as UK in in 2012, UNC in 2009 and 2005,Syracuse in 2003, and Maryland in 2002 to name a few, who won their league title, but did not win their league tournaments. But you have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a non-UConn team to win a national championship who did not win their conference, as 5th place PAC 10 team Arizona beat 2nd place UK in overtime.

I find that hardly common, for anyone other than UConn.

As a longtime BE fan, I find it bizarre for anyone to say the tourney champion is not the league champion. In fact, the trophies state pretty clearly that the Tourney winner is the BE Champion, while the regular season winner is the BE Regular Season Champion. And the reason for this is eminently logical. With 16 teams and no round robin, the BE regular season had all sorts of imbalances.

Yes, the Big East tournament champion has always been the official champion, not the regular season champ. When i said "did not win their league" and counted UConn in 2011 as an example, I was thinking more generically in terms of failing to win either the regular season or the tournament. It just isn't uncommon for a team to fail to win one of those but still win the NCAA tournament.

But no question, UConn was the legitimate Big East champ in 2011, just as Louisville was the AAC champ this year.

And by the way the AAC had 5 deserving teams for the tournament, four of which actually got invited.

AAC is in the top two or three conferences in basketball. We have some work to do in football.

The new BE on the other hand is in major trouble. No teams to be scared of in basketball, which is all they have.

i think the schools that are at the bottom of the AAC conference basketball list will be pretty good football teams in a very short amount of time. Those also happen to be not very good academic schools so they can stash their players a bit easier than most - which means they should get nationally competitive pretty quickly if they are committed to the job at hand. Cincinnati looks to be pretty strong at both.

(04-13-2014 06:46 PM)gostangs Wrote:  And by the way the AAC had 5 deserving teams for the tournament, four of which actually got invited.

AAC is in the top two or three conferences in basketball. We have some work to do in football.

The new BE on the other hand is in major trouble. No teams to be scared of in basketball, which is all they have.

i think the schools that are at the bottom of the AAC conference basketball list will be pretty good football teams in a very short amount of time. Those also happen to be not very good academic schools so they can stash their players a bit easier than most - which means they should get nationally competitive pretty quickly if they are committed to the job at hand. Cincinnati looks to be pretty strong at both.

Why are you knocking AAC schools for their academics? Not everyone has the same academic mission as the elitists at SMU.

BTW, among the bottom half basketball schools, Tulane has some pretty good academics

(04-14-2014 03:16 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 06:46 PM)gostangs Wrote:  And by the way the AAC had 5 deserving teams for the tournament, four of which actually got invited.

AAC is in the top two or three conferences in basketball. We have some work to do in football.

The new BE on the other hand is in major trouble. No teams to be scared of in basketball, which is all they have.

i think the schools that are at the bottom of the AAC conference basketball list will be pretty good football teams in a very short amount of time. Those also happen to be not very good academic schools so they can stash their players a bit easier than most - which means they should get nationally competitive pretty quickly if they are committed to the job at hand. Cincinnati looks to be pretty strong at both.

Why are you knocking AAC schools for their academics? Not everyone has the same academic mission as the elitists at SMU.

BTW, among the bottom half basketball schools, Tulane has some pretty good academics

Good pt.

Its embarrassing that any SMU fan would question others academic mission (especially for student athletes), especially after SMU was able to enroll one of their local 5 star players that didn't even legally graduate from HS...(used backchannels to make local administrators break protocol/rules to make their star player eligible).

The academics point probably rates its own thread, but it's somewhat silly to bring it up since the Big East/American is still a hodgepodge of schools without a similar profile. Indicating that lower admission standards will bring in better athletes is insulting.

It's a conference of urban, basketball-centric schools, but a lot of schools don't fit that like a glove (UConn, Tulane, SMU, Navy, ECU). Temple has gone a long way to shed the commuter school image and its academic ratings have come up.

I don't think it's as much of a marriage of convenience as the Big East was, but there's still the vibe of "we're here until something better comes along".