Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

panicstricken · 05-30-2014 09:03 AM

(05-30-2014 08:43 AM)pesik Wrote:
(05-30-2014 08:41 AM)CougarRed Wrote:
(05-30-2014 08:39 AM)pesik Wrote: you also have to look at the fact that tulsa isnt what it used to be.

Why? Because they had one bad year? That's assuming an awful lot.

because the coaches that recruited/created the goods teams are gone, we'll see what they look like next year

^good point^

We need a new coach bad. Id give us a new coach three or four years of bad to 6-6 football before we are back on top.

oliveandblue · 05-30-2014 09:04 AM

Navy has history against SMU and Tulane. I wouldn't be shocked if that's why they wanted to be in the western division.

Another cool thing is that MD residents such as myself will get to see Tulane at LEAST every other year now that Navy is in the western division.

HP-TBDPITL · 05-30-2014 09:13 AM

I am a bit concerned about the unevenness of these divisions.

It almost makes me wish the ACC gets their divisional format changed so they don't have divisions. I like that change, but not the one that says you can have less than 12 teams.

Without divisions, the conference office can play it how they want, but still have the two highest rated playing in the champ game...which would help in having the highest rated for the access Bowl. As of now, you could have a 10-2 East champ play a 7-5 West division champ and get no help from beating them for being highest rated. When there may be another 10-2 East team available. The other conferences are worried about getting into the playoff...The American needs to focus on getting that access slot first.

CougarRed · 05-30-2014 09:16 AM

(05-30-2014 08:49 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote: The knock on Tulsa tends to be that their institutional profile doesn't look like other programs that sustain success over the long haul. There are not a whole lot of small private schools winning big in college football.

Funny you should mention the long haul. Looking back 50 and even 60 years, Tulsa wins more often than just about any Southern Private, including TCU, Baylor, SMU, Rice, Tulane, Vandy, Wake & Duke.

Like Houston, competitive football is in their bloodlines. And like Houston, their down period from 1992-2002 was an aberration compared to their tradition.

Tulsa's stadium now pales compared to what SMU, Tulane and Houston have. And their fans don't give a lot of money or buy a bunch of tickets. So they could be in for a fall if Blankenship isn't the right guy. Because there is no guarantee his replacement will be the right guy either.

I get it. I'm just saying don't judge Tulsa by its cover.

**Attackcoog** · 05-30-2014 09:20 AM

(05-30-2014 09:01 AM)panicstricken Wrote:
(05-30-2014 06:49 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote: I hate the fact we have to face the triple option but love the fact I get to go to Annapolis every year. If UH doesn't win that division every year it will be a travesty.

Tulsa has more CUSA championships than UH.
Tulsa won the west more than UH.

Why would you think you it will be any different going forward?

Were gonna suck bad this year but with a new staff we will be right back where we belong winning the west every year.

Tulsa had a very good run in CUSA. That said, they were terrible in the WAC and were down more than up in MVC. Looking at their entire history, their CUSA run was unusually good period. It's unreasonably optimistic to look at the best period in their entire history and expect Tulsa to be like that all the time. I think they will generally field respectable teams, and occasionally go on a nice runs for few years, but my guess is that they probably return to the mean a bit. I see no reason they wont be competitive. I also see no reason to think they will be dominant.

pesik · 05-30-2014 09:27 AM

(05-30-2014 09:01 AM)panicstricken Wrote:
(05-30-2014 06:49 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote: I hate the fact we have to face the triple option but love the fact I get to go to Annapolis every year. If UH doesn't win that division every year it will be a travesty.

Tulsa has more CUSA championships than UH.
Tulsa won the west more than UH.

Why would you think you it will be any different going forward?

Were gonna suck bad this year but with a new staff we will be right back where we belong winning the west every year.

wasn't tulsa pretty much a bottom feeder pre-c-usa?
tulsa joined c-usa when everyone in the division was down and capitalized on it
(the same way numerous teams are capitalizing on the current c-usa)
i worry about tulsa for 2 reasons 1 because of the huge fall off last year in a weak c-usa

2) everyone isn't down anymore and with increased profile from the tv network if our recruiting prowess as a conference increases, im not sure tulsa can keep up (you could argue no one besides smu/houston in our division could either)

panicstricken · 05-30-2014 09:32 AM

Tulsa down or lost decade was no worse that uh's bad run.

Every school in the west has had a really bad run.

But blankenship sucks and its gonna get worse before it gets better

pesik · 05-30-2014 09:36 AM

(05-30-2014 09:13 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote: I am a bit concerned about the unevenness of these divisions.

It almost makes me wish the ACC gets their divisional format changed so they don't have divisions. I like that change, but not the one that says you can have less than 12 teams.

Without divisions, the conference office can play it how they want, but still have the two highest rated playing in the champ game...which would help in having the highest rated for the access Bowl. As of now, you could have a 10-2 East champ play a 7-5 West division champ and get no help from beating them for being highest rated. When there may be another 10-2 East team available. The other conferences are worried about getting into the playoff...The American needs to focus on getting that access slot first.

or couldnt the opposite be said? and the opposite more likely?

Houston will be favored to run through the west for the first few years (until the powers at be even's itself out). while the east teams will be beating up on each other

ECBrad · 05-30-2014 09:42 AM

I'm fine with the more difficult division. I'd rather win that because playing against better opponents forces you to improve and our teams will be stronger over time even if the path is harder to walk.

pesik · 05-30-2014 09:44 AM

(05-30-2014 09:42 AM)ECBrad Wrote: I'm fine with the more difficult division. I'd rather win that because playing against better opponents forces you to improve and our teams will be stronger over time even if the path is harder to walk.

tell that to fsu and boise

adcorbett · 05-30-2014 10:51 AM

(05-30-2014 09:13 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote: I am a bit concerned about the unevenness of these divisions.

The irony is the divisions are uneven (historically), but in the exact opposite way in which you insinuate. If we compare all time program success, Navy, Houston, SMU, and Tulsa would likely be 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the conference when you add in years ranked in the final AP poll, the historical standard for success, and balance with wins, losses, and bowl wins:

Code:

                    Overall                    Bowls                    SRS        Finish    

Rk    School    From    To    Yrs    G    W    L    T    Pct    G    W    L    T    Pct    SRS    SOS    AP    CC

01    Navy    1891    2014    121    1213    640    521    52    0.549    18    7    10    1    0.417    4.05    1.46    12    00

02    Hous    1949    2014    066    0725    384    326    15    0.540    21    9    11    1    0.452    3.12    1.47    13    10

03    SoMU    1916    2014    097    1026    471    501    54    0.485    15    7    7    1    0.500    2.48    2.87    11    10

04    Tlsa    1917    2014    083    0890    462    410    18    0.529    19    9    10    0    0.474    -1.2    -2.33    08    27

05    ECaU    1965    2014    050    0558    298    257    03    0.537    14    6    8    0    0.429    -2.23    -2.93    02    06

06    Cinc    1954    2014    061    0665    317    336    12    0.486    11    6    5    0    0.545    -3.16    -2.54    04    07

07    Tlan    1902    2014    110    1100    480    585    35    0.452    10    4    6    0    0.400    0.59    2.04    07    04

08    Memp    1960    2014    055    0594    269    317    08    0.460    06    3    3    0    0.500    -1.91    -1.57    00    03

09    Temp    1930    2014    067    0688    281    381    26    0.427    04    2    2    0    0.500    -3.24    -0.75    01    00

10    UCFl    1996    2014    019    0218    118    100    00    0.541    05    2    3    0    0.400    -2.25    -4.37    02    02

11    USFl    2000    2014    015    0168    093    075    00    0.554    06    4    2    0    0.667    0.42    -1.92    00    00

12    Conn    1979    2014    016    0180    086    092    02    0.483    05    3    2    0    0.600    -3.02    -2.85    00    02

Note since this is all time, I moved UCF, USF, and UConn to the bottom three by default due to the significant gap in number of seasons between them and the other nine teams. Granted Tulane, Navy, and SMU might be in their won category. I placed a premium on AP finishes and winning percentage when assessing the rankings. I gave Navy the tie breaker over Houston due to six top ten finishes and twelve seasons with a top ten appearance (four more top 15).

Note that this info is from Sports-reference.com. For some teams, records prior to 1960 may be missing or not complete. So don't shoot the messenger.

TripleA · 05-30-2014 12:04 PM

(05-30-2014 09:04 AM)oliveandblue Wrote: Navy has history against SMU and Tulane. I wouldn't be shocked if that's why they wanted to be in the western division.

Another cool thing is that MD residents such as myself will get to see Tulane at LEAST every other year now that Navy is in the western division.

I don't know if it was history or recruiting purposes (overall Navy recruiting, NOT FB recruiting), but Navy definitely wanted to play regularly in Texas and New Orleans. In fact, they have been quite open about wanting to play more western teams, since 2011.

They wanted to play SDSU, too.

Gray Avenger · 05-30-2014 12:15 PM

(05-28-2014 10:50 PM)justin_sane15 Wrote: Three privates and an academy is a bit much for one division.

Aren't Notre Dame, Southern Cal and Miami private? Hasn't Navy been competing well with Notre Dame lately?

KNIGHTTIME · 05-30-2014 12:28 PM

(05-30-2014 12:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(05-30-2014 09:04 AM)oliveandblue Wrote: Navy has history against SMU and Tulane. I wouldn't be shocked if that's why they wanted to be in the western division.

Another cool thing is that MD residents such as myself will get to see Tulane at LEAST every other year now that Navy is in the western division.

I don't know if it was history or recruiting purposes (overall Navy recruiting, NOT FB recruiting), but Navy definitely wanted to play regularly in Texas and New Orleans. In fact, they have been quite open about wanting to play more western teams, since 2011.

They wanted to play SDSU, too.

Playing the private schools is a better fit. I'm guessing that is the thought.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode UCF / USF divisional split unlikely... Navy to west gains steam
Author	Message