(08-05-2015 01:11 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:56 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:52 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:18 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:12 PM)TforTempleU Wrote:  Don't pull that "we beat them and they beat you so that makes us better" crap. Didn't Cincy beat you guys head to head?

Yep, typical ECU fans. Like the kid that is always trying to prove how much they belong by constantly over inflating their accomplishments. ECU has an all time win percentage of .520. wow that's huge, congrats!

Have you checked Cincy's all time winning percentage? cough .489 cough. Nice attempt though.

Its actually .510 genius, not to far from that collosal Juggernaut ECU. Check your facts pal.

Well you should probably call your media relations dept at Cincy then and let them know they are putting out false info. According to last years media guide your record was 583-562-51. Add in last years 9-4 that comes to 592-566-51. 592/1209 gives you a wining % of .489.

Thats such ridiculous math that you just used. I'm sorry.

(08-05-2015 01:11 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:56 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:52 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:18 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:12 PM)TforTempleU Wrote:  Don't pull that "we beat them and they beat you so that makes us better" crap. Didn't Cincy beat you guys head to head?

Yep, typical ECU fans. Like the kid that is always trying to prove how much they belong by constantly over inflating their accomplishments. ECU has an all time win percentage of .520. wow that's huge, congrats!

Have you checked Cincy's all time winning percentage? cough .489 cough. Nice attempt though.

Its actually .510 genius, not to far from that collosal Juggernaut ECU. Check your facts pal.

Well you should probably call your media relations dept at Cincy then and let them know they are putting out false info. According to last years media guide your record was 583-562-51. Add in last years 9-4 that comes to 592-566-51. 592/1209 gives you a wining % of .489.

Making the value of an ECU diploma look really really bad.

(08-05-2015 01:21 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 01:11 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:56 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:52 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:18 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  Yep, typical ECU fans. Like the kid that is always trying to prove how much they belong by constantly over inflating their accomplishments. ECU has an all time win percentage of .520. wow that's huge, congrats!

Have you checked Cincy's all time winning percentage? cough .489 cough. Nice attempt though.

Its actually .510 genius, not to far from that collosal Juggernaut ECU. Check your facts pal.

Well you should probably call your media relations dept at Cincy then and let them know they are putting out false info. According to last years media guide your record was 583-562-51. Add in last years 9-4 that comes to 592-566-51. 592/1209 gives you a wining % of .489.

Making the value of an ECU diploma look really really bad.

I facepalmed myself over this.

(08-05-2015 01:17 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 01:11 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:56 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:52 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:18 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  Yep, typical ECU fans. Like the kid that is always trying to prove how much they belong by constantly over inflating their accomplishments. ECU has an all time win percentage of .520. wow that's huge, congrats!

Have you checked Cincy's all time winning percentage? cough .489 cough. Nice attempt though.

Its actually .510 genius, not to far from that collosal Juggernaut ECU. Check your facts pal.

Well you should probably call your media relations dept at Cincy then and let them know they are putting out false info. According to last years media guide your record was 583-562-51. Add in last years 9-4 that comes to 592-566-51. 592/1209 gives you a wining % of .489.

I'm not even sure you are serious with this post. We have won more games than we have lost but are still under 500? Wow, just wow.

Generally, when calculating win %, you omit the games that ended in a tie.

That's counting ties as well. If your only using wins and losses then you are computing win/loss percentage, not winning percentage.

(08-05-2015 01:27 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 01:17 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 01:11 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:56 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:52 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  Have you checked Cincy's all time winning percentage? cough .489 cough. Nice attempt though.

Its actually .510 genius, not to far from that collosal Juggernaut ECU. Check your facts pal.

Well you should probably call your media relations dept at Cincy then and let them know they are putting out false info. According to last years media guide your record was 583-562-51. Add in last years 9-4 that comes to 592-566-51. 592/1209 gives you a wining % of .489.

I'm not even sure you are serious with this post. We have won more games than we have lost but are still under 500? Wow, just wow.

Generally, when calculating win %, you omit the games that ended in a tie.

Generally?

(08-05-2015 01:32 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  That's counting ties as well. If your only using wins and losses then you are computing win/loss percentage, not winning percentage.

Dude, have you looked at the chart the OP put up? Epic stuff.

(08-05-2015 01:32 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  That's counting ties as well. If your only using wins and losses then you are computing win/loss percentage, not winning percentage.

Whatever you say champ.

(08-05-2015 01:38 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 01:27 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 01:17 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 01:11 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:56 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  Its actually .510 genius, not to far from that collosal Juggernaut ECU. Check your facts pal.

Well you should probably call your media relations dept at Cincy then and let them know they are putting out false info. According to last years media guide your record was 583-562-51. Add in last years 9-4 that comes to 592-566-51. 592/1209 gives you a wining % of .489.

I'm not even sure you are serious with this post. We have won more games than we have lost but are still under 500? Wow, just wow.

Generally, when calculating win %, you omit the games that ended in a tie.

Generally?

Actually there is a formula to use for exact WINNING percentage that gives you credit for 1/2 win and 1/2 loss for each tie. I would compute ECU's winning percentage the same way I did Cincy's. Ties count as losses (to me) but if your that concerned about getting your extra 1/2 of wins/losses then go find the formula.

If you add losses and wins and divide the wins by that number that is not winning percentage, you can't just act like ties never happened.

(08-04-2015 04:35 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  h/t Carolina Low Country, thought this could be posted here:






#40 ECU & #45 Houston listed

Oh Southern Miss....you should have been happy with where you were. Now, the next 50 may have you at the bottom of the list.

(08-05-2015 12:42 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 10:07 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Really makes you feel bad for Southern Miss.

They went 0-12 at the worst possible time.

What do you mean? That going winless was the reason they were left behind?

No market and no money is why they were left behind.

(08-05-2015 01:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:42 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 10:07 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Really makes you feel bad for Southern Miss.

They went 0-12 at the worst possible time.

What do you mean? That going winless was the reason they were left behind?

No market and no money is why they were left behind.

Thank you, I was just coming back to that.

(08-05-2015 01:46 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 08:56 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Southern Miss #23.
Not nearly good enough for the AAC.

Nope, you are nowhere even close to being good enough to be in our league so go back to your stupid Crap-USA board and let the adults talk.

23-7 all time, scoreboard. Mo money and mo market doesn't change the numbers.

(08-05-2015 02:29 PM)goldeneagle21 Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 01:46 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 08:56 PM)Noodles Wrote:  Southern Miss #23.
Not nearly good enough for the AAC.

Nope, you are nowhere even close to being good enough to be in our league so go back to your stupid Crap-USA board and let the adults talk.

23-7 all time, scoreboard. Mo money and mo market doesn't change the numbers.

Rather be 7-23 vs Southern Miss and be in the AAC as opposed to 23-7 and in CUSA. Just sayin.

(08-05-2015 12:42 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 10:07 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Really makes you feel bad for Southern Miss.

They went 0-12 at the worst possible time.

What do you mean? That going winless was the reason they were left behind?

yes since it was between them and tulsa

winless waits one year and a 10 win season after finishing top 25 and usm is in IMO

tulsa was only invite for its winning reputation...luckily for tulsa it was an 11 win team when invites were handed and didnt flop till they were already voted in

(08-05-2015 02:41 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:42 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 10:07 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Really makes you feel bad for Southern Miss.

They went 0-12 at the worst possible time.

What do you mean? That going winless was the reason they were left behind?

yes since it was between them and tulsa

winless waits one year and a 10 win season after finishing top 25 and usm is in IMO

tulsa was only invite for its winning reputation...luckily for tulsa it was an 11 win team when invites were handed and didnt flop till they were already voted in

I'm not so sure of that. No offense to Southern Miss, but they do not really fit the market profile.

(08-05-2015 02:49 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 02:41 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:42 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 10:07 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Really makes you feel bad for Southern Miss.

They went 0-12 at the worst possible time.

What do you mean? That going winless was the reason they were left behind?

yes since it was between them and tulsa

winless waits one year and a 10 win season after finishing top 25 and usm is in IMO

tulsa was only invite for its winning reputation...luckily for tulsa it was an 11 win team when invites were handed and didnt flop till they were already voted in

I'm not so sure of that. No offense to Southern Miss, but they do not really fit the market profile.

neither does tulsa....usm was never going o make it on the original model but after teams started bailing we weere just grabbing teams that could win

usm just finished top 25 and had 18 years consecutive of being bowl eligible..they had history with everyone but then went 0-12 the very next year

no one is adding a 0-12 team to a league desperate for perception

tulsa was top 25 in the coaches poll when the invite was given and they have a history of winning (then completely collapsed after the invite)
usm's 30k attendance at the time attendance (dropped since sucking), ability to recruit (numerous 4 stars since 2000) would have trumped tulsa 20k attendance (even on good seasons) and 4.3k student body

I don't think the media market model is being used by the AAC anymore. That was a big BE strategy.

It obviously didn't help out TV contract and the fact that a la carte programming is on its way to TV means it will be used less and less as we go forward.

(08-05-2015 02:49 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 02:41 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:42 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2015 10:07 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Really makes you feel bad for Southern Miss.

They went 0-12 at the worst possible time.

What do you mean? That going winless was the reason they were left behind?

yes since it was between them and tulsa

winless waits one year and a 10 win season after finishing top 25 and usm is in IMO

tulsa was only invite for its winning reputation...luckily for tulsa it was an 11 win team when invites were handed and didnt flop till they were already voted in

I'm not so sure of that. No offense to Southern Miss, but they do not really fit the market profile.

Blah, blah. Yes, our esteemed "market profile" (sounds like a term that you just made up) that landed us our massive, $1.5 million/year TV deal.

If USM was still as good as they were under Bower/Fedora, they would have been worth the look, because whatever fraction less of $1.5 million/year we would have gotten with them (instead of Tulsa or Tulane), they would have improved the AAC's on field product.

(08-05-2015 03:02 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 02:49 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 02:41 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:42 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(08-05-2015 12:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  They went 0-12 at the worst possible time.

What do you mean? That going winless was the reason they were left behind?

yes since it was between them and tulsa

winless waits one year and a 10 win season after finishing top 25 and usm is in IMO

tulsa was only invite for its winning reputation...luckily for tulsa it was an 11 win team when invites were handed and didnt flop till they were already voted in

I'm not so sure of that. No offense to Southern Miss, but they do not really fit the market profile.

neither does tulsa....usm was never going o make it on the original model but after teams started bailing we weere just grabbing teams that could win

usm just finished top 25 and had 18 yeas on being bowl eligible..they had history with everyone but then went 0-12 the very next year

no one is adding a 0-12 team to a league desperate for perception

tulsa was top 25 in the coaches poll when the invite was given and they have a history of winning (then completely collapsed after the invite)
usm's 30k attendance at the time attendance (dropped since sucking), ability to recruit (numerous 4 stars since 2000) would have trumped tulsa 20k attendance (even on good seasons) and 4.3 student body

I think we were "in the discussion" at the time but that's about it. Tulsa is a market. ECU is the outlier with their small market but they also have a large fan base, relatively speaking. To go from being in the old Metro Conference to being in the conference we are in now is extremely humbling but as long as the AAC remains G5 it's not any different. I hate that we no longer play against ECU, Houston, Cincy etc...that is the part that kills me the most. I mean our home games this year other than MS State, are Austin Peay, North Texas, UTSA, UTEP and Old Dominion <--- I mean WOW, seriously humbling.