(06-17-2014 10:21 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:17 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Cincinnati and UCF, in regards to potentially leaving the AAC for another conf...in this case, the Big 12.

Joe Schad was asked who he would invite to the Big 12 (as the pressure for them to expand will grow when odds are, the P5 Committee will give Final Four bids to teams from conferences with extra Championship Game, ala SEC, ACC, Big Ten, & Pac-12), and he mentioned both Cincinnati and UCF as 11th and 12th teams.

How many fap threads do you need to start on this?

You're right. We need less of these threads and more "ECU logo drawn in sand" and "I just ordered this ECU shirt online."

(06-17-2014 10:31 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 10:21 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:17 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Cincinnati and UCF, in regards to potentially leaving the AAC for another conf...in this case, the Big 12.

Joe Schad was asked who he would invite to the Big 12 (as the pressure for them to expand will grow when odds are, the P5 Committee will give Final Four bids to teams from conferences with extra Championship Game, ala SEC, ACC, Big Ten, & Pac-12), and he mentioned both Cincinnati and UCF as 11th and 12th teams.

How many fap threads do you need to start on this?

You're right. We need less of these threads and more "ECU logo drawn in sand" and "I just ordered this ECU shirt online."

(06-17-2014 09:29 AM)panicstricken Wrote:  The Big 12 has a CCG its called the Red River Rivalry. If that doesnt work out they have Bedlam during Thanksgiving.

The University of Texas would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever look at two directional schools in Florida as equals and allow them in the Big 12. It will never happen unless Texas and Oklahoma leave for the Pac 12.

You beat me to it.

(06-17-2014 10:39 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:29 AM)panicstricken Wrote:  The Big 12 has a CCG its called the Red River Rivalry. If that doesnt work out they have Bedlam during Thanksgiving.

The University of Texas would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever look at two directional schools in Florida as equals and allow them in the Big 12. It will never happen unless Texas and Oklahoma leave for the Pac 12.

You beat me to it.

I just think its a riot that both of you think that UT considers even any of its current members as EQUALS.

Hint: One of the main reasons why Texas A&M left the Big 12 was because UT never considered A&M as equals....let alone the likes of Okie State, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Tech Tech, Baylor...and of course West Virginia.

While UT may not admit it...only one that might remotely be considered an equal is Oklahoma...and most at UT wouldn't even admit that....yet its funny to see posts like the above two...who think UT has "equals" in their current conf make-up.

(06-17-2014 10:07 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:56 AM)pesik Wrote:  the argument that i don't get=

"the big 12 will be left out because of no conference championship"

Thats what was discussed yesterday on ESPNU...plus scores of other times on every sports network since the announcement that a Playoff Committee, with free reign (i.e. not set rules) will select the 4 teams that will participate in the Final Four Playoff.

When all other P5 Conferences are playing a pretty tough extra 13th game...that will obviously have impact on who the Committee will select...because if not, SEC (and ACC, Big Ten & Pac-12) would immediately cancel their Championship Games.

Also, seeing how SEC Commish Slive (shock!) was able to make sure that there will never be a maximum number of teams from the same conf that can be selected for the Final 4 by the Committee...almost assures that the mighty SEC will have 2 out of the 4 sports most years....so that leaves the Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12 and Big 12 fighting over just 2 remaining spots...and now doubt the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 Conf Game Champ will earn "extra credit" over whoever finishes (on paper) at the Top of the Big 12 most years.

that makes no sense at all
reason 1, the championship game wasnt created for competitive advantage but solely for money, they won't give you the money

reason 2, its the only way for them to have a champion with so many teams and not playing like 4 of them, without a championship game they have no way of crowning a real champion

reason 3, the average team in some conferences are worse than the big 12 and the conference championship is their way of getting even

reason 4, im pretty certain they are required to have a conference championship with divisions if you have 12 or more , why the ACC was lobbying to have that change so anyone can choose how they want to crown their champion

reason 5, "13th game" is irrelevant its about SOS not about playing another game..and the big 12 already has an "additional" tough game playing 9 conference game (in a conference thats 9/10th of the conference is good) while some are playing 8 (in weaker conferences) with 4 ooc cupcakes

the extra credit thing is weak ..again thy aren't going to look at the big 12 and say they have dramatically better SOS but we'll give it to this guy with weaker SOS because "conference championship"

and ps in all likely hood it will be extremely unlikely the SEC get 2 most years, i will honestly be a rare occasion maybe once every 5 years

(06-17-2014 08:40 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I think UCF/USF combo makes a lot of sense if the Big12 pulls the trigger. Put them in separate divisions and the other Big12 teams get one game in Florida each season. Good growth opportunity on top of bigger markets. Sort of sells itself. Just my opinion.

And it gets their foot in two of the top recruiting locations - Ohio and Florida.

But I don't see the Big12 expanding until their have to - may be in 3-5 years.

(06-17-2014 10:31 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 10:21 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:17 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Cincinnati and UCF, in regards to potentially leaving the AAC for another conf...in this case, the Big 12.

Joe Schad was asked who he would invite to the Big 12 (as the pressure for them to expand will grow when odds are, the P5 Committee will give Final Four bids to teams from conferences with extra Championship Game, ala SEC, ACC, Big Ten, & Pac-12), and he mentioned both Cincinnati and UCF as 11th and 12th teams.

How many fap threads do you need to start on this?

You're right. We need less of these threads and more "ECU logo drawn in sand" and "I just ordered this ECU shirt online."

Don't look at me. I'm not the one starting stupid crap like that. It's just funny that KL had this same thread yesterday (moved to the Realignment board) and felt the need to start another one.

(06-17-2014 11:10 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 10:31 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 10:21 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:17 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Cincinnati and UCF, in regards to potentially leaving the AAC for another conf...in this case, the Big 12.

Joe Schad was asked who he would invite to the Big 12 (as the pressure for them to expand will grow when odds are, the P5 Committee will give Final Four bids to teams from conferences with extra Championship Game, ala SEC, ACC, Big Ten, & Pac-12), and he mentioned both Cincinnati and UCF as 11th and 12th teams.

How many fap threads do you need to start on this?

You're right. We need less of these threads and more "ECU logo drawn in sand" and "I just ordered this ECU shirt online."

Don't look at me. I'm not the one starting stupid crap like that. It's just funny that KL had this same thread yesterday (moved to the Realignment board) and felt the need to start another one.

Sorry your feelings were hurt.

Thanks again for your interest...and when I hear about ECU's mentioned on ESPN College Football Live, especially during the off-season summer months...I will post about that info too (only of course if you approve).

Since there are 4 playoff slots and 5 Power 5 champions I can see the Big12 adding two if they don't get invited to that final four enough. A championship game gives their guy one more 'quality win' before the final calculation. If so, I'd wager BYU, Cincinnati, and UCF as the three candidates for those two invites.

(06-17-2014 11:23 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 11:10 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Don't look at me. I'm not the one starting stupid crap like that. It's just funny that KL had this same thread yesterday (moved to the Realignment board) and felt the need to start another one.

Sorry your feelings were hurt....

Just one man's opinion. I'll keep it to myself next time since I didn't have your back story. I think a lot of stuff that ECU fans post are pointless FWIW. ECU fans tend to be a little over bearing at times.

Thread should be on the realignment board (along with others like UMASS) IMO. But whatever man, I don't lose any sleep over it. Thread is about some guys opinion, not even a rumor really. Does make for interesting conversation, though.

(06-17-2014 09:15 AM)3rdWardCoog Wrote:  What I like is that when you hear things about who could move BYU, Cincy, UCONN, USF, UCF amongst others are mentioned. That's 40% of our current conference having enough "media" clout or attention to say they could/should get called up. However, they turn around and say the AAC is like the Sunbelt?

I think the perspective is more like this:

American = C-USA 2.0
MWC = WAC 2.0
C-USA = Sun Belt 2.0
Sun Belt = FCS 2.0

It's not that the current American is the same as the current C-USA/Sun Belt. It's that the American is pretty much what the C-USA was in 2005 (which is actually quite accurate, with Navy, UConn, and Temple as the only members who weren't ever part of C-USA).

But, the current C-USA has 9 former Sun Belt members, so:

In other words, here's how the nation sees the G5, American=MWC > C-USA > Sun Belt. I'm not entirely certain where the MAC fits, but it's definitely not higher than C-USA, but there are strong arguments that it's = to the Sun Belt, plus Northern Illinois.

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:15 AM)3rdWardCoog Wrote:  What I like is that when you hear things about who could move BYU, Cincy, UCONN, USF, UCF amongst others are mentioned. That's 40% of our current conference having enough "media" clout or attention to say they could/should get called up. However, they turn around and say the AAC is like the Sunbelt?

I think the perspective is more like this:

American = C-USA 2.0
MWC = WAC 2.0
C-USA = Sun Belt 2.0
Sun Belt = FCS 2.0

It's not that the current American is the same as the current C-USA/Sun Belt. It's that the American is pretty much what the C-USA was in 2005 (which is actually quite accurate, with Navy, UConn, and Temple as the only members who weren't ever part of C-USA).

But, the current C-USA has 9 former Sun Belt members, so:

In other words, here's how the nation sees the G5, American=MWC > C-USA > Sun Belt. I'm not entirely certain where the MAC fits, but it's definitely not higher than C-USA, but there are strong arguments that it's = to the Sun Belt, plus Northern Illinois.

Maybe not.

AAC had 2 football teams ranked in the Top 25 last year (including a BCS Bowl Win). MWC didn't have ANY team ranked in Top 25 at season's end.

Then once you add that AAC team won the Men's Hoop National Title...AAC will now have year-round exposure...something they never really had in the old CUSA (bad football tv contract...REALLY pathetic basketball tv contract).

(06-17-2014 10:18 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  In regards to the Big 12 Champ who won't play in a Championship Game and may not making it to the Final Four...just look at last year's rankings after Championship Game weekend and where the Big 12 Champ was ranked (compared to most others that played in Championship Game):

BCS Rankings and AP Poll

#1 FSU (ACC Championship Game Winner)
#2 Auburn (SEC Championship Game Winner)
#3 Alabama (2nd place finish in SEC West)
#4 Michigan State (Big Ten Championship Game Winner)
#5 Stanford (Pac-12 Championship Game Winner)
#6 Baylor (Won Big 12 regular season...11-1 record...did not get to play in a 13th and extra high profile Big 12 Championship Game.

NOTE: In Coaches Poll, Baylor was ranked #5 after Championship Game Weekend.

Some years (maybe not all), Big 12 Champ will be hurt from not playing that extra 13th game like all the other P5 Champs.

IMO, the Big 12 is playing it smart. The selection committee will more likely take the best four teams, with conference championships as one factor. Look at:

2012
#1 Notre Dame (independent)
#2 Alabama (SEC Championship game winner)
#3 Oregon (non-champ)
#4 Florida (non-champ)
#5 Georgia (non-champ)
#6 Kansas St. (Big 12 champ without a championship game)
#7/8 LSU (non-champ)
#7/8 Stanford (PAC 12 Championship game winner)
......
#12 Florida St. (ACC championship game winner)
>>>>
NR Wisconsin (B1G Championship game winner)

3 of the top 4 teams were non-champs. Big 12 champ Kansas St. is ranked ahead of the PAC 12, ACC, and Big Ten championship game winners.

2011

#1 LSU (SEC championship game winner)
#2 Alabama (non-champ)
#3 Oklahoma St. (Big 12 champ without a championship game)
#4 Stanford (non-champ)
#5 Oregon (PAC 12 championship game winner)
#6 Boise St. (non-champ)
#7 Arkansas (non-champ)
#8 Wisconsin (B1G championship game winner)
....
#15 Clemson (ACC championship game winner)

2 of the top 4 are non-champs and the Big 12 champ Oklahoma St. is ranked ahead of the PAC 12, Big Ten, and ACC championship game winners.

2010

#1/2 Auburn (SEC championship game winner)
#1/2 Oregon (PAC 12 champ, without championship game)
#3 TCU (MWC champ, without championship game
#4 Wisconsin (B1G Co-Champs, without championship game)
#5 Stanford (non-champ)
#6 Ohio St. (non-champ)
#7 Michigan St. (B1G Co-Champs, without championship game)
#8 Arkansas (non-champ)
#9 Oklahoma (Big 12 championship game winner)
....
#13 Virginia Tech (ACC championship game winner)

All top 4 are conference champs, but only one (SEC) held a conference championship game. The two other P5 conferences that held a championship game (including the Big 12) were ranked well behind the conferences that DIDN'T have championship game.

(06-17-2014 12:14 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  I think the perspective is more like this:

American = C-USA 2.0
MWC = WAC 2.0
C-USA = Sun Belt 2.0
Sun Belt = FCS 2.0

It's not that the current American is the same as the current C-USA/Sun Belt. It's that the American is pretty much what the C-USA was in 2005 (which is actually quite accurate, with Navy, UConn, and Temple as the only members who weren't ever part of C-USA).

But, the current C-USA has 9 former Sun Belt members, so:

In other words, here's how the nation sees the G5, American=MWC > C-USA > Sun Belt. I'm not entirely certain where the MAC fits, but it's definitely not higher than C-USA, but there are strong arguments that it's = to the Sun Belt, plus Northern Illinois.

Maybe not.

AAC had 2 football teams ranked in the Top 25 last year (including a BCS Bowl Win). MWC didn't have ANY team ranked in Top 25 at season's end.

Then once you add that AAC team won the Men's Hoop National Title...AAC will now have year-round exposure...something they never really had in the old CUSA (bad football tv contract...REALLY pathetic basketball tv contract).

I'm not contending that the MWC = American. IMO, the NATIONAL perception is that American = MWC.

The nation sees that Rutgers and Louisville are leaving and that three C-USA teams are joining. Just like how Utah and TCU left the MWC and they were replaced by WAC teams.

One good season has not completely undone the national perception.

(06-17-2014 12:23 PM)YNot Wrote:  #3 TCU (MWC champ, without championship game

Thats one of the main reasons why the P5 "stacked" their own Final Four Committee with their own (i.e. most of the Committee members have ties to P5 teams/conferences).

TCU's strength of schedule that year was #86...even AFTER playing (losing) to Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl.

P5 didn't want 'computers' (like BCS) to have influence in Final Four rankings, let alone silly reporters (like AP Poll) or coaches (USA TODAY).

(06-17-2014 12:34 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:14 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  I think the perspective is more like this:

American = C-USA 2.0
MWC = WAC 2.0
C-USA = Sun Belt 2.0
Sun Belt = FCS 2.0

It's not that the current American is the same as the current C-USA/Sun Belt. It's that the American is pretty much what the C-USA was in 2005 (which is actually quite accurate, with Navy, UConn, and Temple as the only members who weren't ever part of C-USA).

But, the current C-USA has 9 former Sun Belt members, so:

In other words, here's how the nation sees the G5, American=MWC > C-USA > Sun Belt. I'm not entirely certain where the MAC fits, but it's definitely not higher than C-USA, but there are strong arguments that it's = to the Sun Belt, plus Northern Illinois.

Maybe not.

AAC had 2 football teams ranked in the Top 25 last year (including a BCS Bowl Win). MWC didn't have ANY team ranked in Top 25 at season's end.

Then once you add that AAC team won the Men's Hoop National Title...AAC will now have year-round exposure...something they never really had in the old CUSA (bad football tv contract...REALLY pathetic basketball tv contract).

I'm not contending that the MWC = American. IMO, the NATIONAL perception is that American = MWC.

The nation sees that Rutgers and Louisville are leaving and that three C-USA teams are joining. Just like how Utah and TCU left the MWC and they were replaced by WAC teams.

One good season has not completely undone the national perception.

Come on, it's a waste of time to even debate vague concepts like 'national perception'. Especially in a conference that just got it's name about a year ago, and still isn't playing with it's full final membership. What cannot be argued is that the AAC had an absolutely spectacular first year and well out performed all the other 'G5' conferences. (Heck, even out performed a few P5, see the #AmericanRising thread!)

That's about all we were hoping for, a great start.

I think the Big 12's top choices should be...

1 - ECU
2 - ECU



I kid, I kid. Unfortunately, I am afraid it's only a matter of time before we (the American) get poached again.

(06-17-2014 12:34 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:14 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  I think the perspective is more like this:

American = C-USA 2.0
MWC = WAC 2.0
C-USA = Sun Belt 2.0
Sun Belt = FCS 2.0

It's not that the current American is the same as the current C-USA/Sun Belt. It's that the American is pretty much what the C-USA was in 2005 (which is actually quite accurate, with Navy, UConn, and Temple as the only members who weren't ever part of C-USA).

But, the current C-USA has 9 former Sun Belt members, so:

In other words, here's how the nation sees the G5, American=MWC > C-USA > Sun Belt. I'm not entirely certain where the MAC fits, but it's definitely not higher than C-USA, but there are strong arguments that it's = to the Sun Belt, plus Northern Illinois.

Maybe not.

AAC had 2 football teams ranked in the Top 25 last year (including a BCS Bowl Win). MWC didn't have ANY team ranked in Top 25 at season's end.

Then once you add that AAC team won the Men's Hoop National Title...AAC will now have year-round exposure...something they never really had in the old CUSA (bad football tv contract...REALLY pathetic basketball tv contract).

I'm not contending that the MWC = American. IMO, the NATIONAL perception is that American = MWC.

That's your opinion...and I'll gladly stick to mine.

National perception (via polls, national championship games, BCS Games, etc...), AAC, even after just year 1 comes out on top.

NOTE: MWC was establishedin 1999...and the Conf NEVER had a team win the National Championship in Football or Basketball.

AAC did that in just Year 1.

(06-17-2014 12:46 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:34 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:14 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 12:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  I think the perspective is more like this:

American = C-USA 2.0
MWC = WAC 2.0
C-USA = Sun Belt 2.0
Sun Belt = FCS 2.0

It's not that the current American is the same as the current C-USA/Sun Belt. It's that the American is pretty much what the C-USA was in 2005 (which is actually quite accurate, with Navy, UConn, and Temple as the only members who weren't ever part of C-USA).

But, the current C-USA has 9 former Sun Belt members, so:

In other words, here's how the nation sees the G5, American=MWC > C-USA > Sun Belt. I'm not entirely certain where the MAC fits, but it's definitely not higher than C-USA, but there are strong arguments that it's = to the Sun Belt, plus Northern Illinois.

Maybe not.

AAC had 2 football teams ranked in the Top 25 last year (including a BCS Bowl Win). MWC didn't have ANY team ranked in Top 25 at season's end.

Then once you add that AAC team won the Men's Hoop National Title...AAC will now have year-round exposure...something they never really had in the old CUSA (bad football tv contract...REALLY pathetic basketball tv contract).

I'm not contending that the MWC = American. IMO, the NATIONAL perception is that American = MWC.

The nation sees that Rutgers and Louisville are leaving and that three C-USA teams are joining. Just like how Utah and TCU left the MWC and they were replaced by WAC teams.

One good season has not completely undone the national perception.

Come on, it's a waste of time to even debate vague concepts like 'national perception'. Especially in a conference that just got it's name about a year ago, and still isn't playing with it's full final membership. What cannot be argued is that the AAC had an absolutely spectacular first year and well out performed all the other 'G5' conferences. (Heck, even out performed a few P5, see the #AmericanRising thread!)

That's about all we were hoping for, a great start.

I agree, and BTW, in my opinion the national perception, for what it's worth, is that the AAC is slightly ahead of the MWC, and the best non "so called P5" conference.