A one-year wonder doesn't have 4 10+ win seasons in the last 7 years with 4 Division Championships, 3 outright Conference Championships, 3 consecutive bowl wins including a BCS Bowl, and 3 Top 25 finishes.

Also, Cincinnati has established in the last 5-7 seasons more than the bottom half of the AAC, including USF, combined during that time.

So, yes, I'd say they've established something.

(06-15-2014 06:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i have to think UC not playing UCF is by design....I cannot believe it as simple as "not something the AAC leadership looked at".

I can. You guys are acting like Cincy is our LSU and UCF is our Alabama, year in year out elites that are obviously among the cream of our conference. But, they aren't. Neither has established anything, UCF is a one year wonder for all we know.

The AAC doesn't yet have an elite tier so no reason for AAC officials to gerrymander anything.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You're coming off as a bit jelly.

(06-15-2014 06:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i have to think UC not playing UCF is by design....I cannot believe it as simple as "not something the AAC leadership looked at".

I can. You guys are acting like Cincy is our LSU and UCF is our Alabama, year in year out elites that are obviously among the cream of our conference. But, they aren't. Neither has established anything, UCF is a one year wonder for all we know.

The AAC doesn't yet have an elite tier so no reason for AAC officials to gerrymander anything.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

i originally wanted to believe its wsapure coincidence aswell..put the nyou look at the end of the year showdowns vs the top 4 teams (aka strategic placement) it clearly shows that they are aware they are going to be viewed as the top 4 and put it on championship week hoping for a defacto championship game (same with how UC and Ul were preseason favorites last year and they also coincidentally ended up on championship week)

mix that with dan wolken reporting that The aac execs strategically planned the schedule for basketball, making sure all top 4 played twice (ps smu isnt established in basktball, to throw a wrench in your theory)

to think they werent strategically planning for football (the bread winner) but were doing it for basketball, just seems a bit of stretch to me

it could be coincidence but i cant see it

(06-15-2014 06:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:49 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  i have to think UC not playing UCF is by design....I cannot believe it as simple as "not something the AAC leadership looked at".

I can. You guys are acting like Cincy is our LSU and UCF is our Alabama, year in year out elites that are obviously among the cream of our conference. But, they aren't. Neither has established anything, UCF is a one year wonder for all we know.

The AAC doesn't yet have an elite tier so no reason for AAC officials to gerrymander anything.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I don't think this is the case of anybody claiming UC is LSU or UCF is Bama.

More like, UCF is the defending champion and looks to be good again and UC is, expected by most, to be a contender for the AAC....again. In addition, and probably even more so, neither played last year so you would think all in all they should be playing this year. That's the point Quo.

And for the record, take the records of both UCF and UC the last seven or eight years and there is a big difference in both programs to say Tulane, Memphis, and a host of other AAC teams. Again, you would think they would be playing this year.



Further...in the Big East they did match up schools at year end they 'thought' may have a chance for a title game, i.e. Pitt vs UC end of the season TWICE and UC/UL last year. I don't see the AAC doing this...and it's for a reason since there is no AQ now.