(07-06-2014 07:05 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  How many current G5 schools were once in an AQ conference? Should be fairly easy to list the schools.

Cincinnati
SMU
Houston
Connecticut
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
Temple

The AAC was an AQ conference last year....

(07-07-2014 12:03 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:05 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  How many current G5 schools were once in an AQ conference? Should be fairly easy to list the schools.

Cincinnati
SMU
Houston
Connecticut
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
Temple

The AAC was an AQ conference last year....

And if the SWC existed in this era it would have been AQ also. You "could" add Rice to that list as well.

(07-06-2014 06:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.

I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.

Just like everywhere else in our country it is only those under 40 who don't know. "Son, fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life." Who knew Dean Wermer would be such a prophet!

This has some validity. (Although it's not limited to the current generation; I'm sure your parents said the same thing about you, just as your great-great grandparents said the same thing about your great-grandparents).

However it's also true that things sometimes change dramatically. Universities change. In 1970, USF was 14 year-old commuter college. In 2014 USF has 47,000 students and is a top-60 research university in the country. They are currently, by all measures, a better school than Ole' Miss, Arkansas, and many other "major" schools. And they have one of the better athletic departments in the AAC.

I'm as big of a history buff as you'll ever find. But over-focusing on history does a great disservice to where a country/people/university is today. In 2014, thinking of USF as a commuter college with a IAA athletic program, or Virginia Tech as a minor eastern indy, is just as silly as thinking of UCLA as small teachers' college in the SCIAC (which they were until 1928).

That question becomes more interesting when you move out of the given school's region, at least as far as a casual fan's perception would be. For example, while I'm quite familiar with Colorado having moved from the Big 12 to the PAC, or Nebraska to the B1G, a casual fan from the Northeast (well, at least one who doesn't frequent sites like this ) may not be as prone to knowing about their moves. Similarly, ask a random person in KC what conference Rutgers belongs to, and they may have no idea. (Since geography isn't part of its name, they may not even know that Rutgers is in New Jersey, for that matter...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/upshot....html?_r=0

This article is about politics, but addresses the same issue. The formative years greatly influence your perceptions, whether its political or whether its about schools and their conferences. There's a fascinating table linked that allows you to look at the voting by birth year.

"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"

(07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To disavow past associations is just as disingenuous as to think that your school is magically transformed by new ones. The past cannot be separated from the present anymore for a school than for a life. We are the sum total of all of our experiences and understanding each phase of our life helps to inform the track of our future. Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.

You should never be ashamed of your roots and should fully embrace and integrate your past with your present. That is reality. We may live in the age of revisionism but the lies that such sells should be fully exposed and expunged.

I know that I follow a basketball-only, but I don't agree with your second paragraph at all. There is a reason teams want to move up in the world: to correct the mistakes of the past. SLU's basketball history is not great, and it's the reason that the Billikens are where they are today. I don't see anyone "embracing" the past but decrying it.

History is static, but the future can change.

(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.

I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.

WAIT! We were in the Southern Conference???

(I kid...I kid!)

(07-06-2014 06:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I remember seeing Nebraska games against non B10 opponents from the 70s on the BTN and thinking WTF????

when a conference adds a school they also inherit that particular schools history apparently.

I don't have a problem with that so much.
1) They are showing the greatest games of the schools in the Big10. You wouldn't want to be a fan of a new Big10 school and never see any old videos of your school just because you have no backlog that is Big10. All that does is make the network less interesting to the fans of new entrants.
2) No one watches that stuff anyway (or do they?) Personally, I don't see the attraction to watching a game whose outcome I already know.

(07-06-2014 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 06:46 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  The opposite is also true at what point do former power conference members, who are now G5, start being members of the G5?

Apparently instantaneously. Houston and SMU are always referred to as "CUSA" schools---as if they have always been CUSA schools and were never anything more than a CUSA school. It would be just as accurate to refer to them as former SWC schools--especially considering the CUSA they joined no longer exists (lol...their current conference is more like the original CUSA than the current CUSA).

So does this mean that they are former - and current members of C-USA 1.0?
I certainly like the C-USA name better than the AAC name.

(07-08-2014 01:54 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 06:46 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  The opposite is also true at what point do former power conference members, who are now G5, start being members of the G5?

Apparently instantaneously. Houston and SMU are always referred to as "CUSA" schools---as if they have always been CUSA schools and were never anything more than a CUSA school. It would be just as accurate to refer to them as former SWC schools--especially considering the CUSA they joined no longer exists (lol...their current conference is more like the original CUSA than the current CUSA).

So does this mean that they are former - and current members of C-USA 1.0?
I certainly like the C-USA name better than the AAC name.

Which version of C-USA was SLU a part of?

(07-08-2014 10:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.

I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.

WAIT! We were in the Southern Conference???

(I kid...I kid!)

If you are in Division I, you were probably either in the Southern Conference, the Missouri Valley or Sun Belt at some point. And excluding the Northeast, Big 10 & MAC and west of the Rockies, its overwhelmingly likely.

(07-08-2014 02:19 PM)LouPower Wrote:  Which version of C-USA was SLU a part of?

1.0

Joined in 1995.

(07-08-2014 02:19 PM)LouPower Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 01:54 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 06:46 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  The opposite is also true at what point do former power conference members, who are now G5, start being members of the G5?

Apparently instantaneously. Houston and SMU are always referred to as "CUSA" schools---as if they have always been CUSA schools and were never anything more than a CUSA school. It would be just as accurate to refer to them as former SWC schools--especially considering the CUSA they joined no longer exists (lol...their current conference is more like the original CUSA than the current CUSA).

So does this mean that they are former - and current members of C-USA 1.0?
I certainly like the C-USA name better than the AAC name.

Which version of C-USA was SLU a part of?

C-USA officially began play in 1995.

C-USA 1.0 would be all the FB-playing and/or BB-playing members until the first major exodus (although they weren't all in the whole time - or for all sports the whole time). I'm ignoring schools that were affiliate members for a minor sport - which there have been many.

The first major exodus was in 2005. During the exodus; TCU, USF, Cincinnati, Army and L'ville and all the non-FB schools (DePaul, Marquette, StLouis and UNC-Charlotte) leave.

C-USA 2.0 was the remaining 6 members of C-USA 1.0 (Houston, Tulane, SoMiss, UAB, Memphis, ECU) plus the 6 new all-sports members (Marshall, UCF, SMU, Rice, Tulsa and UTEP). C-USA was now made up of 12 all-sports schools and they held a FB championship game for the first time.

The 2nd major exodus marks the end of C-USA 2.0.

The second major exodus spans two years (2013-2014) as 4 schools left in 2013 (Memphis, Houston, SMU and UCF) and 3 more are gone in 2014 (Tulane, ECU and Tulsa). The remaining 5 C-USA 2.0 members (SoMiss, UAB, Marhsall, Rice and UTEP) were joined by 8 schools in 2013 (Charlotte, FAU, FIU, La-Tech, MTSU, UNT, OldDominion and UTSA) and have added one more in 2014 (WKU). OldDominion and Charlotte have been phasing in to all-sports membership.

C-USA 3.0 has 2 members who have been in all three incarnations of the conference (SoMiss and UAB), one that was in C-USA 1.0 and is now back in C-USA 3.0 (Charlotte), and 3 that were in C-USA 2.0 and C-USA 3,0 (Marshall, Rice and UTEP). The other 8 are new for version 3.0.

(07-07-2014 11:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the rest of the AAC includes Memphis and Tulsa, who were "mid-majors" when the vast majority of the G5 was in a lower division, Navy, who was once a major, and UCF and ECU who last year were the only G5 members over 40k in attendance (and Fresno and Navy the only others over 35k).

Does this mean you consider BYU to be in the P5?

(07-06-2014 01:12 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  As we exit this last round of conference movement, it has not been uncommon to read opinions in many places where an athletic program is identified by a previous conference (or non-conference independent) association from a lot of people.

There have been programs who have changed conferences more than three times within the last 50 years. One has to do some research to find out what conference affiliation a particular program had 50 years ago. In this age, where everything seems to go faster and faster, I find it peculiar that there are people who identify a school as a Conference Y school when it is in Conference X. Perhaps these people are older and have trouble adjusting to new realities. Perhaps they're traditionalists and don't like all this movement in college sports to begin with.

So my question to you would be: is there a time limit that you stop identifying a school by its past association?

Good responses will be welcome.

Because most people are stupid and to lazy to research an issue!

(07-08-2014 02:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.

I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.

WAIT! We were in the Southern Conference???

(I kid...I kid!)

If you are in Division I, you were probably either in the Southern Conference, the Missouri Valley or Sun Belt at some point. And excluding the Northeast, Big 10 & MAC and west of the Rockies, its overwhelmingly likely.

Syracuse was never in any of those conferences.

(07-09-2014 03:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Schools that were once part of a smaller conference or lower tier can no more forget their past than the schools of the SEC and ACC can forget that they were once part of the Southern Conference.

I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.

WAIT! We were in the Southern Conference???

(I kid...I kid!)

If you are in Division I, you were probably either in the Southern Conference, the Missouri Valley or Sun Belt at some point. And excluding the Northeast, Big 10 & MAC and west of the Rockies, its overwhelmingly likely.

Syracuse was never in any of those conferences.

Well, then there is only one conclusion to make: Syracuse is not a Division I program.

(he did omit the NE though - and the Big10, the MAC and everything west of the Rockies - which seems like a lot to exclude frankly)

(07-09-2014 03:38 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would bet that 95% of all ACC and SEC alumni and fans have no clue that their schools were ever in the Southern Conference.

WAIT! We were in the Southern Conference???

(I kid...I kid!)

If you are in Division I, you were probably either in the Southern Conference, the Missouri Valley or Sun Belt at some point. And excluding the Northeast, Big 10 & MAC and west of the Rockies, its overwhelmingly likely.

Syracuse was never in any of those conferences.

Well, then there is only one conclusion to make: Syracuse is not a Division I program.

(he did omit the NE though - and the Big10, the MAC and everything west of the Rockies - which seems like a lot to exclude frankly)

That may have been true in football from '05-'09.

(07-09-2014 03:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:38 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 02:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  WAIT! We were in the Southern Conference???

(I kid...I kid!)

If you are in Division I, you were probably either in the Southern Conference, the Missouri Valley or Sun Belt at some point. And excluding the Northeast, Big 10 & MAC and west of the Rockies, its overwhelmingly likely.

Syracuse was never in any of those conferences.

Well, then there is only one conclusion to make: Syracuse is not a Division I program.

(he did omit the NE though - and the Big10, the MAC and everything west of the Rockies - which seems like a lot to exclude frankly)

That may have been true in football from '05-'09.

I love posters with a good sense of humor - even concerning their own program.