(05-11-2014 11:00 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here are the results of draft choices between MWC members and AAC since 2010
Total
MWC =56
AAC= 65
By schools
1.UConn 13 vs Boise 14
2. USF. 12. Vs SDSU 11
3. Cincinnati 9 vs USU 8
4. SMU 9 vs Fresno 6

I think it's important to note that the top 3 schools were all members of the Big East, hence were perceived to be members of a Power/AQ conference by recruits. We won't have that advantage going forward.

In contrast, Homer's point about C-USA vs AAC recruiting is much less relevant, as both C-USA and the AAC are part of the G5. That speaks to the building we have to do.

(05-11-2014 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I haven't dismissed it, I just noted that a big part of the national stature we enjoyed this first basketball season, like in football, was provided by Louisville, a school that will not be with us going forward, and so in terms of drawing implications for the future, that season has to be evaluated as if UL was not a part of the clan.

Elementary stuff, but it swooshes over your head.

There you go again, using the troll device "us". You expose yourself, and remove any point toward meaningful debate. At least if you represented yourself in a straight-forward manner, there might be enough respect for your argument to continue this discussion.

(05-11-2014 11:05 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I haven't dismissed it, I just noted that a big part of the national stature we enjoyed this first basketball season, like in football, was provided by Louisville, a school that will not be with us going forward, and so in terms of drawing implications for the future, that season has to be evaluated as if UL was not a part of the clan.

Elementary stuff, but it swooshes over your head.

There you go again, using the troll device "us". You expose yourself, and remove any point toward meaningful debate. At least if you represented yourself in a straight-forward manner, there might be enough respect for your argument to continue this discussion.

Your focus on my use of "us" is a laughable red-herring, it only speaks to your inability to counter my data and arguments. IOW's, typical Homer nonsense.

(05-11-2014 11:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:05 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I haven't dismissed it, I just noted that a big part of the national stature we enjoyed this first basketball season, like in football, was provided by Louisville, a school that will not be with us going forward, and so in terms of drawing implications for the future, that season has to be evaluated as if UL was not a part of the clan.

Elementary stuff, but it swooshes over your head.

There you go again, using the troll device "us". You expose yourself, and remove any point toward meaningful debate. At least if you represented yourself in a straight-forward manner, there might be enough respect for your argument to continue this discussion.

Your focus on my use of "us" is a laughable red-herring, it only speaks to your inability to counter my data and arguments. IOW's, typical Homer nonsense.

Not really.

It's an acknowledgement that your "arguments" are not well-rounded and laced with innuendo and agenda.

(05-11-2014 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:00 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here are the results of draft choices between MWC members and AAC since 2010
Total
MWC =56
AAC= 65
By schools
1.UConn 13 vs Boise 14
2. USF. 12. Vs SDSU 11
3. Cincinnati 9 vs USU 8
4. SMU 9 vs Fresno 6

I think it's important to note that the top 3 schools were all members of the Big East, hence were perceived to be members of a Power/AQ conference by recruits. We won't have that advantage going forward.

In contrast, Homer's point about C-USA vs AAC recruiting is much less relevant, as both C-USA and the AAC are part of the G5. That speaks to the building we have to do.

you put G5 under 1 blanket like recruits look at that. they look at the school then the conference and rarely g5/p5.

ucf pulled its best recruiting class potentially ever despite being on sanctions, temple also brought in it's best recruiting class as far a depth. our recruiting even for the old BE teams will improve with the football exposure we'll be getting (they werent top recruiting teams to begin with the big east to begin with)
you might not see c-usa to the aac that big a jump, but 30-70% cbssports (depending on how good you were) to 60-100% espn networks is ridiculous jump

(05-11-2014 11:09 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:05 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I haven't dismissed it, I just noted that a big part of the national stature we enjoyed this first basketball season, like in football, was provided by Louisville, a school that will not be with us going forward, and so in terms of drawing implications for the future, that season has to be evaluated as if UL was not a part of the clan.

Elementary stuff, but it swooshes over your head.

There you go again, using the troll device "us". You expose yourself, and remove any point toward meaningful debate. At least if you represented yourself in a straight-forward manner, there might be enough respect for your argument to continue this discussion.

Your focus on my use of "us" is a laughable red-herring, it only speaks to your inability to counter my data and arguments. IOW's, typical Homer nonsense.

Not really.

Actually, really, as the rest of your post once again proved. No substance, you'd just rather mindlessly defend the AAC and bash those who disagree.

(05-11-2014 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:09 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Not really.

Actually, really, as the rest of your post once again proved. No substance, you'd just rather mindlessly defend the AAC and bash those who disagree.

Mindlessly defend the AAC??????

What's there to defend? We have the Fiesta Bowl Crown (over the Big 12 Champions) and the Men's and Women's Basketball National Champions.

If that needs defending, sign me up pro bono.

#AmericanRising

(05-11-2014 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:00 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here are the results of draft choices between MWC members and AAC since 2010
Total
MWC =56
AAC= 65
By schools
1.UConn 13 vs Boise 14
2. USF. 12. Vs SDSU 11
3. Cincinnati 9 vs USU 8
4. SMU 9 vs Fresno 6

I think it's important to note that the top 3 schools were all members of the Big East, hence were perceived to be members of a Power/AQ conference by recruits. We won't have that advantage going forward.

In contrast, Homer's point about C-USA vs AAC recruiting is much less relevant, as both C-USA and the AAC are part of the G5. That speaks to the building we have to do.

USFs recruiting classes have improved since WT came on board and he doesn't have the BE label.
The next five years will decide wether the AAC separates itself from the MWC. But as I posted even in a league there is a wide difference just as there is in the SEC between LSU and Vandy.
The AAC does have a larger number of schools that because of size,money, recruiting grounds and tv markets can do better than the other G5 conferences.

And exposure, brands, and substantial recent achievements that have already brought greater brand equity to the AAC mark.

(05-11-2014 11:21 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:00 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Here are the results of draft choices between MWC members and AAC since 2010
Total
MWC =56
AAC= 65
By schools
1.UConn 13 vs Boise 14
2. USF. 12. Vs SDSU 11
3. Cincinnati 9 vs USU 8
4. SMU 9 vs Fresno 6

I think it's important to note that the top 3 schools were all members of the Big East, hence were perceived to be members of a Power/AQ conference by recruits. We won't have that advantage going forward.

In contrast, Homer's point about C-USA vs AAC recruiting is much less relevant, as both C-USA and the AAC are part of the G5. That speaks to the building we have to do.

you put G5 under 1 blanket like recruits look at that. they look at the school then the conference and rarely g5/p5.

I think the P5/G5 distinction is new and sharp, and will be regarded as such by recruits. The amount of exposure for the former will be far greater than for the latter.

But we shall see.

(05-11-2014 11:36 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:09 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Not really.

Actually, really, as the rest of your post once again proved. No substance, you'd just rather mindlessly defend the AAC and bash those who disagree.

Mindlessly defend the AAC??????

What's there to defend?

The really bad draft results. You know, the topic of this thread?

(05-11-2014 12:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:36 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 11:09 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Not really.

Actually, really, as the rest of your post once again proved. No substance, you'd just rather mindlessly defend the AAC and bash those who disagree.

Mindlessly defend the AAC??????

What's there to defend?

The really bad draft results. You know, the topic of this thread?

Do everyone a favor and leave for Tigerdroppings. You won't be missed.

(05-11-2014 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 06:51 AM)otown Wrote:  i dont have a problem with maize posting here. all he is doing is correcting the drivel that quo is spewing.

and to our resident troll:

hey quo..... i stubbed my toe this morning. please create a story for me on how it is related to the AAC sucking. you seem to do that with every other topic.

This post makes little sense. The NFL Draft is not something like stubbing a toe. Thanks to ESPN/NFL hype, it has evolved into a major football event, and it is always discussed in terms of implications for colleges and conference.

Colleges that have lots of draft picks most surely market that to recruits because it is evidence that they can place their players in the NFL, and the same is true of conferences.

As the draft just ended yesterday, my post drawing those implications for the AAC was very timely and relevant. You just don't like the news.

Sometimes it's not the news but the tone and tenor. In other words you could be right but you're still a prick.

I dont get why this thread is a big deal to everyone.

(05-11-2014 10:33 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:17 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As the draft just ended yesterday, my post drawing those implications for the AAC was very timely and relevant. You just don't like the news.

Actually, the draft reflected very well on the AAC.

It really didn't, it reflected lousy on us. When the roster of schools that will constitute the AAC this coming season have a grand total of nine draft picks, the same number as the single school with the most draft picks, well, that is a very poor number.

Importantly, the AAC number was nowhere near P5 level, definitely not a "tweener" draft for us. The lowest-ranking P5 conference was the Big 12, with 17 picks. Our 9 is far away from that. Overall, the P5 conferences averaged 34 draft picks, almost 4x as many as we had. That's bad for us.

Heck, our major competition for the top G5 (tallest midget) title is the MWC, and they had 16 draft picks, much better than us.

No sense in sugar-coating it, we need a major talent upgrade to establish ourselves as a good football conference.

One year means nothing. Could be the case that the conference's senior class wasn't that strong. Now let's look at 5 year numbers and that would give us a better idea

Here is historical data by conference. Granted only three teams from the old big east remain but gives you some context...

Yr SEC B10 ACC P12 B12 BE School with most draft picks
1999 37 27 31 27 33 17 Florida State (11)
2000 41 36 23 28 24 20 Alabama (8)
2001 41 40 21 24 31 18 Southern California, North Carolina (9)
2002 47 36 18 32 25 27 Florida (9)
2003 43 36 17 29 35 23 Southern California (11)
2004 42 44 25 30 23 28 Southern California (10)
2005 37 30 36 33 33 8 Florida (9)
2006 37 41 51 32 29 11 Southern California (11)
2007 41 31 31 28 28 15 Oklahoma (11)
2008 35 28 34 34 30 19 Ohio State (14)
2009 37 28 32 32 28 27 Florida, Miami, Fla., Tennessee (8)
2010 49 34 31 28 30 18 Miami, Fla. (11)
2011 38 29 35 31 30 21 Florida State (9)
2012 42 41 31 28 26 12 Tennessee (9)
2013 63 22 31 28 22 18 Florida, Ohio State (8)
Totals 630 503 447 444 427 282


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/06/500...rylink=cpy