(11-15-2015 02:24 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  ^ +1.

+2.

(11-15-2015 05:34 PM)MUther Wrote:  I think only comparing top teams is a fallacy. For instance, USM, would have struggled the last few years against any AAC team. This year they could solidly beat 4-6 of them, toss-up between 2-4, and probably lose to top 4 AAC teams. While UCF would likely not win a game in CUSA, unless they played us of course

It's cyclical and coaching changes, rebuilding, etc will make some teams rise and others fall. Just as the AAC was pretty terrible last year they are pretty damn good this year. And their parity is starting to show. They will eliminate themselves from being too great just as CUSA has historically done.

I think the evolution of the AAC parity actually makes the gap a little more narrow then wide. CUSA wasn't good OOC this year. But even if we had been, we would have banged each other up except for a few teams at the very top and would have been written off as a bad conference. That was the AAC last year. It can flipflop again. And there will likely be some coaching changes, etc, again because just like us their coaches want to reach the pinnacle of college ball. And much as they don't want to admit it, the AAC is not near the pinnacle.

We, the AAC are not near the pinnacle, however, we must take our leave from the G5 (Now referred to as G4). We are still related and relate to the CUSA. Never forget that. We will follow our flagship program (Houston) into uncharted waters. Farewell Family!!

(11-15-2015 06:42 PM)strongv Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:34 PM)MUther Wrote:  I think only comparing top teams is a fallacy. For instance, USM, would have struggled the last few years against any AAC team. This year they could solidly beat 4-6 of them, toss-up between 2-4, and probably lose to top 4 AAC teams. While UCF would likely not win a game in CUSA, unless they played us of course

It's cyclical and coaching changes, rebuilding, etc will make some teams rise and others fall. Just as the AAC was pretty terrible last year they are pretty damn good this year. And their parity is starting to show. They will eliminate themselves from being too great just as CUSA has historically done.

I think the evolution of the AAC parity actually makes the gap a little more narrow then wide. CUSA wasn't good OOC this year. But even if we had been, we would have banged each other up except for a few teams at the very top and would have been written off as a bad conference. That was the AAC last year. It can flipflop again. And there will likely be some coaching changes, etc, again because just like us their coaches want to reach the pinnacle of college ball. And much as they don't want to admit it, the AAC is not near the pinnacle.

We, the AAC are not near the pinnacle, however, we must take our leave from the G5 (Now referred to as G4). We are still related and relate to the CUSA. Never forget that. We will follow our flagship program (Houston) into uncharted waters. Farewell Family!!

And just who is referring to the G5 as the G4? AAC fans, lol.

(11-15-2015 07:56 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 06:42 PM)strongv Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:34 PM)MUther Wrote:  I think only comparing top teams is a fallacy. For instance, USM, would have struggled the last few years against any AAC team. This year they could solidly beat 4-6 of them, toss-up between 2-4, and probably lose to top 4 AAC teams. While UCF would likely not win a game in CUSA, unless they played us of course

It's cyclical and coaching changes, rebuilding, etc will make some teams rise and others fall. Just as the AAC was pretty terrible last year they are pretty damn good this year. And their parity is starting to show. They will eliminate themselves from being too great just as CUSA has historically done.

I think the evolution of the AAC parity actually makes the gap a little more narrow then wide. CUSA wasn't good OOC this year. But even if we had been, we would have banged each other up except for a few teams at the very top and would have been written off as a bad conference. That was the AAC last year. It can flipflop again. And there will likely be some coaching changes, etc, again because just like us their coaches want to reach the pinnacle of college ball. And much as they don't want to admit it, the AAC is not near the pinnacle.

We, the AAC are not near the pinnacle, however, we must take our leave from the G5 (Now referred to as G4). We are still related and relate to the CUSA. Never forget that. We will follow our flagship program (Houston) into uncharted waters. Farewell Family!!

And just who is referring to the G5 as the G4? AAC fans, lol.

Please feel free to use the new term of endearment, G4. Thank you for your support.

AAC is better than CUSA and has been since it's formation. Anybody who says other wise is in extreme denial.

(11-15-2015 06:42 PM)strongv Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:34 PM)MUther Wrote:  I think only comparing top teams is a fallacy. For instance, USM, would have struggled the last few years against any AAC team. This year they could solidly beat 4-6 of them, toss-up between 2-4, and probably lose to top 4 AAC teams. While UCF would likely not win a game in CUSA, unless they played us of course

It's cyclical and coaching changes, rebuilding, etc will make some teams rise and others fall. Just as the AAC was pretty terrible last year they are pretty damn good this year. And their parity is starting to show. They will eliminate themselves from being too great just as CUSA has historically done.

I think the evolution of the AAC parity actually makes the gap a little more narrow then wide. CUSA wasn't good OOC this year. But even if we had been, we would have banged each other up except for a few teams at the very top and would have been written off as a bad conference. That was the AAC last year. It can flipflop again. And there will likely be some coaching changes, etc, again because just like us their coaches want to reach the pinnacle of college ball. And much as they don't want to admit it, the AAC is not near the pinnacle.

We, the AAC are not near the pinnacle, however, we must take our leave from the G5 (Now referred to as G4). We are still related and relate to the CUSA. Never forget that. We will follow our flagship program (Houston) into uncharted waters. Farewell Family!!

Stop it with the G4 crap. There are only two groups recognized by College Football Playoff Committee: P5 and G5. That's it. No P6, no separation. Everyone is in one or the other and the rules are the same for each school in each of the two groups.

(11-15-2015 09:49 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 09:15 AM)Franko Wrote:  No doubt the AAC is the better conference over all this season but looking back just to last season there is a lot of proof that CUSA had a better season.
The Houston-Memphis game had bigger ramifactions than USM-Rice, I would hope it was attract a larger audience.
It is a misnomer to state that there was gap to begin with when using only one season as the foundation for your assessment.
That should be saw not seen by the way.
Congrats to Houston on the comeback, Memphis basically handed them the game.

You really think there is no gap between the two? 4 ranked AAC teams , while not great, says much about perception and clout.

There was. There will be 1 this week. 1 loss to another g5 does you in there as well basically.

(11-15-2015 08:40 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 06:42 PM)strongv Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:34 PM)MUther Wrote:  I think only comparing top teams is a fallacy. For instance, USM, would have struggled the last few years against any AAC team. This year they could solidly beat 4-6 of them, toss-up between 2-4, and probably lose to top 4 AAC teams. While UCF would likely not win a game in CUSA, unless they played us of course

It's cyclical and coaching changes, rebuilding, etc will make some teams rise and others fall. Just as the AAC was pretty terrible last year they are pretty damn good this year. And their parity is starting to show. They will eliminate themselves from being too great just as CUSA has historically done.

I think the evolution of the AAC parity actually makes the gap a little more narrow then wide. CUSA wasn't good OOC this year. But even if we had been, we would have banged each other up except for a few teams at the very top and would have been written off as a bad conference. That was the AAC last year. It can flipflop again. And there will likely be some coaching changes, etc, again because just like us their coaches want to reach the pinnacle of college ball. And much as they don't want to admit it, the AAC is not near the pinnacle.

We, the AAC are not near the pinnacle, however, we must take our leave from the G5 (Now referred to as G4). We are still related and relate to the CUSA. Never forget that. We will follow our flagship program (Houston) into uncharted waters. Farewell Family!!

Stop it with the G4 crap. There are only two groups recognized by College Football Playoff Committee: P5 and G5. That's it. No P6, no separation. Everyone is in one or the other and the rules are the same for each school in each of the two groups.

To effect a change, we have to start on the football field. After backing it up on the field, then conversation ensues. Our vocabulary changes with this conversation. G4 terminology is not meant to be demeaning, just a starting point in discussions. I am not so naive to believe that everyone associated with the G5 would be accepting of the new term. Perhaps over time and further discussions the "G4" term will be more tolerable.

After this season, only 14 more seasons of the AAC being contractually part of the G5. Nice try, though.

(11-15-2015 08:47 PM)strongv Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 08:40 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 06:42 PM)strongv Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:34 PM)MUther Wrote:  I think only comparing top teams is a fallacy. For instance, USM, would have struggled the last few years against any AAC team. This year they could solidly beat 4-6 of them, toss-up between 2-4, and probably lose to top 4 AAC teams. While UCF would likely not win a game in CUSA, unless they played us of course

It's cyclical and coaching changes, rebuilding, etc will make some teams rise and others fall. Just as the AAC was pretty terrible last year they are pretty damn good this year. And their parity is starting to show. They will eliminate themselves from being too great just as CUSA has historically done.

I think the evolution of the AAC parity actually makes the gap a little more narrow then wide. CUSA wasn't good OOC this year. But even if we had been, we would have banged each other up except for a few teams at the very top and would have been written off as a bad conference. That was the AAC last year. It can flipflop again. And there will likely be some coaching changes, etc, again because just like us their coaches want to reach the pinnacle of college ball. And much as they don't want to admit it, the AAC is not near the pinnacle.

We, the AAC are not near the pinnacle, however, we must take our leave from the G5 (Now referred to as G4). We are still related and relate to the CUSA. Never forget that. We will follow our flagship program (Houston) into uncharted waters. Farewell Family!!

Stop it with the G4 crap. There are only two groups recognized by College Football Playoff Committee: P5 and G5. That's it. No P6, no separation. Everyone is in one or the other and the rules are the same for each school in each of the two groups.

To effect a change, we have to start on the football field. After backing it up on the field, then conversation ensues. Our vocabulary changes with this conversation. G4 terminology is not meant to be demeaning, just a starting point in discussions. I am not so naive to believe that everyone associated with the G5 would be accepting of the new term. Perhaps over time and further discussions the "G4" term will be more tolerable.

(11-15-2015 08:32 PM)polkhigh Wrote:  AAC is better than CUSA and has been since it's formation. Anybody who says other wise is in extreme denial.

Actually, it's been well covered as to why that's hardly the case. Not sure where you've been. So how exactly do they have more access to the Top 4 (CFP)? Uhhh yea they don't. So how exactly do they have more access to the single spot on the New Years 6 Bowl Games? Uhhhh yea they don't.

Better basketball conf? Sure

Football?
Sorry but Roy Kramer is still laughing at all of us and that's not changed since 1998.

(11-15-2015 08:47 PM)strongv Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 08:40 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 06:42 PM)strongv Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 05:34 PM)MUther Wrote:  I think only comparing top teams is a fallacy. For instance, USM, would have struggled the last few years against any AAC team. This year they could solidly beat 4-6 of them, toss-up between 2-4, and probably lose to top 4 AAC teams. While UCF would likely not win a game in CUSA, unless they played us of course

It's cyclical and coaching changes, rebuilding, etc will make some teams rise and others fall. Just as the AAC was pretty terrible last year they are pretty damn good this year. And their parity is starting to show. They will eliminate themselves from being too great just as CUSA has historically done.

I think the evolution of the AAC parity actually makes the gap a little more narrow then wide. CUSA wasn't good OOC this year. But even if we had been, we would have banged each other up except for a few teams at the very top and would have been written off as a bad conference. That was the AAC last year. It can flipflop again. And there will likely be some coaching changes, etc, again because just like us their coaches want to reach the pinnacle of college ball. And much as they don't want to admit it, the AAC is not near the pinnacle.

We, the AAC are not near the pinnacle, however, we must take our leave from the G5 (Now referred to as G4). We are still related and relate to the CUSA. Never forget that. We will follow our flagship program (Houston) into uncharted waters. Farewell Family!!

Stop it with the G4 crap. There are only two groups recognized by College Football Playoff Committee: P5 and G5. That's it. No P6, no separation. Everyone is in one or the other and the rules are the same for each school in each of the two groups.

To effect a change, we have to start on the football field. After backing it up on the field, then conversation ensues. Our vocabulary changes with this conversation. G4 terminology is not meant to be demeaning, just a starting point in discussions. I am not so naive to believe that everyone associated with the G5 would be accepting of the new term. Perhaps over time and further discussions the "G4" term will be more tolerable.

This is just as pitiful as when all the schools that were leaving CUSA waited around all that week for Boise State to announce their move so they could piggy back onto their announcement. Some things are just head shakers.

(11-15-2015 09:19 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 08:32 PM)polkhigh Wrote:  AAC is better than CUSA and has been since it's formation. Anybody who says other wise is in extreme denial.

Actually, it's been well covered as to why that's hardly the case. Not sure where you've been. So how exactly do they have more access to the Top 4 (CFP)? Uhhh yea they don't. So how exactly do they have more access to the single spot on the New Years 6 Bowl Games? Uhhhh yea they don't.

Better basketball conf? Sure

Football?
Sorry but Roy Kramer is still laughing at all of us and that's not changed since 1998.

lol what?

this post is not to rag on anyone or any conference or does it reflect on the thoughts of any other houston/aac fans

1) i didn't see a single human/analyst conference ranking that had C-usa ranked higher than the AAC last year, the order from almost all of them had was 1. mwc 2. aac 3. c-usa, "the computers" had us flipped but that was because we had our bad teams drag us down and we had way harder bowls (all p5/byu) and lost most of them..the big 12 has been ranked #1 by the computers numerous times over the SEC in the last 6 years, no one considered the big 12 better any of them..the big east was ranked #2 in 2009 but everyone said Cincy (who was undefeated didnt deserve a title shot)

the Missouri valley was ranked higher than c-usa last year AND this year..no one here thinks an fcs conference is better than c-usa

2) about the "widening gap" it will depend on the tv deal....last year you guys were praising ASN as amazing, now you guys hate it.i always thought it was bad. college football is based around perception. back to the big 12/sec comparison, the big 12 was honestly almost as good as the SEC a few years back, something like 9 out of 10 were bowl eligible, everyone but kansas was 4-0 in OOC. but the media still crowned the SEC..and the media Hype of the SEC has actually made their dominance legit (not just hype) because now every elite players wants to go to the SEC (even the bad teams)

you guys complain about espn but espn is where kids want to be on.and where they can find you...and no one knows what ASN is..ASN will kill your recruitment, the AAC was already had better recruiting teams but the espn deal is widening that...

ive said this before but if marshall had did what it did last year on the aac tv deal, cato would have been a Heisman candidate , Marshall would have been all over the media and would have put the Marshall brand on pedestal

(11-15-2015 10:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  this post is not to rag on anyone or any conference or does it reflect on the thoughts of any other houston/aac fans

1) i didn't see a single human/analyst conference ranking that had C-usa ranked higher than the AAC last year, the order from almost all of them had was 1. mwc 2. aac 3. c-usa, "the computers" had us flipped but that was because we had our bad teams drag us down and we had way harder bowls (all p5/byu) and lost most of them..the big 12 has been ranked #1 by the computers numerous times over the SEC in the last 6 years, no one considered the big 12 better any of them..the big east was ranked #2 in 2009 but everyone said Cincy (who was undefeated didnt deserve a title shot)

the Missouri valley was ranked higher than c-usa last year AND this year..no one here thinks an fcs conference is better than c-usa

2) about the "widening gap" it will depend on the tv deal....last year you guys were praising ASN as amazing, now you guys hate it.i always thought it was bad. college football is based around perception. back to the big 12/sec comparison, the big 12 was honestly almost as good as the SEC a few years back, something like 9 out of 10 were bowl eligible, everyone but kansas was 4-0 in OOC. but the media still crowned the SEC..and the media Hype of the SEC has actually made their dominance legit (not just hype) because now every elite players wants to go to the SEC (even the bad teams)

you guys complain about espn but espn is where kids want to be on.and where they can find you...and no one knows what ASN is..ASN will kill your recruitment, the AAC was already had better recruiting teams but the espn deal is widening that...

ive said this before but if marshall had did what it did last year on the aac tv deal, cato would have been a Heisman candidate , Marshall would have been all over the media and would have put the Marshall brand on pedestal

In case you didn't know CUSA finished ahead of the AAC in CFP distribution last year.

MWC 23.4 million
CUSA 16.3
AAC 15.2
MAC 14
Sunbelt 11.9

(11-15-2015 10:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  this post is not to rag on anyone or any conference or does it reflect on the thoughts of any other houston/aac fans

1) i didn't see a single human/analyst conference ranking that had C-usa ranked higher than the AAC last year, the order from almost all of them had was 1. mwc 2. aac 3. c-usa, "the computers" had us flipped but that was because we had our bad teams drag us down and we had way harder bowls (all p5/byu) and lost most of them..the big 12 has been ranked #1 by the computers numerous times over the SEC in the last 6 years, no one considered the big 12 better any of them..the big east was ranked #2 in 2009 but everyone said Cincy (who was undefeated didnt deserve a title shot)

the Missouri valley was ranked higher than c-usa last year AND this year..no one here thinks an fcs conference is better than c-usa

2) about the "widening gap" it will depend on the tv deal....last year you guys were praising ASN as amazing, now you guys hate it.i always thought it was bad. college football is based around perception. back to the big 12/sec comparison, the big 12 was honestly almost as good as the SEC a few years back, something like 9 out of 10 were bowl eligible, everyone but kansas was 4-0 in OOC. but the media still crowned the SEC..and the media Hype of the SEC has actually made their dominance legit (not just hype) because now every elite players wants to go to the SEC (even the bad teams)

you guys complain about espn but espn is where kids want to be on.and where they can find you...and no one knows what ASN is..ASN will kill your recruitment, the AAC was already had better recruiting teams but the espn deal is widening that...

ive said this before but if marshall had did what it did last year on the aac tv deal, cato would have been a Heisman candidate , Marshall would have been all over the media and would have put the Marshall brand on pedestal

So what you're saying is the AAC's top 4 or 5 schools couldn't beat 4 or 5 6-6 P5 schools last year? See how little difference there is?

this year the AAC won a few of those games...and gets ranked #1 in the G5. Last year the MWC won some of those games and had the #1 ranking in the G5. CUSA won our share and had the #2 ranking

(11-15-2015 11:16 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  In case you didn't know CUSA finished ahead of the AAC in CFP distribution last year.

MWC 23.4 million
CUSA 16.3
AAC 15.2
MAC 14
Sunbelt 11.9

the distribution is decided by the bcs computers...thats why i noted the computers
every human power rankings had the AAC better

if the Missouri valley was in the distribution arrangement, Missouri valley would have gotten more money than both of us..

this is what i find strange, no one here will say c-usa is worse than the missouri valley , but will say c-usa was better than the AAC....but the thing they are using to justify them being better than the AAC says the Missouri Valley was better than c-usa

(11-15-2015 11:24 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  I think it's important to state that these things change almost yearly. This year the AAC is clearly ahead by a wide margin. But it's because Temple, Memphis, Houston, and Navy are all playing lights out. They deserve this credit this year. The question is...how many of these teams do this regularly? Navy plays like this fairly frequently. Next would probably be Houston. Temple and Memphis may have never been this good, and after this year may not be again for another decade (especially if their coaches get taken). The media loves to live in the NOW though. So this year the AAC gets what they deserve (everyone clap). Imo next year the gap won't be nearly as wide between them and the next closest G5...maybe even nonexistent.

It is very likely that the G5 leagues are going to more or less rotate dominance. I'd expect most years the top league will be one of: AAC/CUSA/MWC, with an occassional shock by the Belt or the MAC. This was definitely an up year for the MAC, overall. But these things ebb and flow. QB play and the endless coaching carousel are big parts of the cycle; the individual leagues' rise or fall from prominence will continue to generally follow these movements.

In terms of established fanbases though, the AAC has an edge over the other leagues (if BYU were in the MWC, it'd be a lot closer). And it is definitely the best basketball league at this time. Things change though. The fact that every program in these leagues has ambitions of being upwardly mobile means that I really wouldn't waste much time on any sense of entitled elitism or a "we have arrived" mindset. You could wake up tomorrow with a vastly different landscape with just a couple of moves setting off a domino reaction.

There is a giant gap in perception, fan support, revenue, etc. That said, the c-USA can be a large spring board for schools. Definitely schools like ODU, UTSA, FAU, Charlotte, and FIU are going to have the chance to use that extra exposure, money, etc to grow. I think ODU and charlotte are the ones to watch. Both are in college passionate areas. ODU sells out their smaller stadium regularly. I can't imagine what they would do in the AAC with more money. UTSA is in another area that might blow up in the future.

(11-15-2015 11:16 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 10:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  this post is not to rag on anyone or any conference or does it reflect on the thoughts of any other houston/aac fans

1) i didn't see a single human/analyst conference ranking that had C-usa ranked higher than the AAC last year, the order from almost all of them had was 1. mwc 2. aac 3. c-usa, "the computers" had us flipped but that was because we had our bad teams drag us down and we had way harder bowls (all p5/byu) and lost most of them..the big 12 has been ranked #1 by the computers numerous times over the SEC in the last 6 years, no one considered the big 12 better any of them..the big east was ranked #2 in 2009 but everyone said Cincy (who was undefeated didnt deserve a title shot)

the Missouri valley was ranked higher than c-usa last year AND this year..no one here thinks an fcs conference is better than c-usa

2) about the "widening gap" it will depend on the tv deal....last year you guys were praising ASN as amazing, now you guys hate it.i always thought it was bad. college football is based around perception. back to the big 12/sec comparison, the big 12 was honestly almost as good as the SEC a few years back, something like 9 out of 10 were bowl eligible, everyone but kansas was 4-0 in OOC. but the media still crowned the SEC..and the media Hype of the SEC has actually made their dominance legit (not just hype) because now every elite players wants to go to the SEC (even the bad teams)

you guys complain about espn but espn is where kids want to be on.and where they can find you...and no one knows what ASN is..ASN will kill your recruitment, the AAC was already had better recruiting teams but the espn deal is widening that...

ive said this before but if marshall had did what it did last year on the aac tv deal, cato would have been a Heisman candidate , Marshall would have been all over the media and would have put the Marshall brand on pedestal

In case you didn't know CUSA finished ahead of the AAC in CFP distribution last year.

MWC 23.4 million
CUSA 16.3
AAC 15.2
MAC 14
Sunbelt 11.9

Yes, you get money based on how many schools are in your conference (assuming they meet APR)...we only had 11 members last year...CUSA had 14...it's all about getting the Access Bowl