Not trying to throw shade on these AAC programs, just pointing out that C-USA is headed in the right direction....

After the end of the 2013 season, ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane left C-USA for the AAC. Since joining the AAC, those three have combined to finish with 2 winning seasons and 3 bowl appearances.

While the teams C-USA added to replace them (FAU, WKU, and MT) have combined to finish with 7 winning seasons and 8 bowl appearances in the same time period.

I think our current line up is getting stronger.

Wat to cherry pick the teams. What about Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati, Central Florida.

(06-05-2018 04:59 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Wat to cherry pick the teams. What about Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati, Central Florida.

To be fair, the criteria he used to select teams is consistent, and his point stands.

I am pretty sure Memphis was the only team you mentioned that was still in CUSA in 2013. I know Louisville and Cincinnati have been gone quite a while now.

Point still stands. CUSA is not better off.

(06-05-2018 04:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Not trying to throw shade on these AAC programs, just pointing out that C-USA is headed in the right direction....

After the end of the 2013 season, ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane left C-USA for the AAC. Since joining the AAC, those three have combined to finish with 2 winning seasons and 3 bowl appearances.

While the teams C-USA added to replace them (FAU, WKU, and MT) have combined to finish with 7 winning seasons and 8 bowl appearances in the same time period.

I think our current line up is getting stronger.

Looks more like weak competition to me.

Notice this is not coming from fans of a school in this conference five years ago.

(06-05-2018 05:13 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Point still stands. CUSA is not better off.

We are better off then if we would have kept those three programs. Trading ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane for WKU, MT, and FAU looks like a genius move right now. Of course we did add Charlotte too. No one bats 1.000. Man, the butt hurt is strong with some of you AAC fans.

Here is the map that inspired my thread.

(06-05-2018 04:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Not trying to throw shade on these AAC programs, just pointing out that C-USA is headed in the right direction....

After the end of the 2013 season, ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane left C-USA for the AAC. Since joining the AAC, those three have combined to finish with 2 winning seasons and 3 bowl appearances.

While the teams C-USA added to replace them (FAU, WKU, and MT) have combined to finish with 7 winning seasons and 8 bowl appearances in the same time period.

I think our current line up is getting stronger.

"Heading in the right direction" is very subjective.

ECU, Tulsa, Tulane, Houston, UCF, and Memphis are much more house hold names in college athletics than UTSA, Charlotte, UNT, ODU, and F_U...so no, CUSA is not better off. The money proves this.

Now, if your saying UNT is in much better shape now than y'all were in 2012 then you've got an argument.

(06-05-2018 06:41 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 04:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Not trying to throw shade on these AAC programs, just pointing out that C-USA is headed in the right direction....

After the end of the 2013 season, ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane left C-USA for the AAC. Since joining the AAC, those three have combined to finish with 2 winning seasons and 3 bowl appearances.

While the teams C-USA added to replace them (FAU, WKU, and MT) have combined to finish with 7 winning seasons and 8 bowl appearances in the same time period.

I think our current line up is getting stronger.

"Heading in the right direction" is very subjective.

ECU, Tulsa, Tulane, Houston, UCF, and Memphis are much more house hold names in college athletics than UTSA, Charlotte, UNT, ODU, and F_U...so no, CUSA is not better off. The money proves this.

Now, if your saying UNT is in much better shape now than y'all were in 2012 then you've got an argument.

Do you think C-USA football would be better off if we still had ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane, instead of WKU, MT, and FAU? Because that is the basis of this entire thread.

I believe C-USA is better off, but you are free to have your own opinion.

(06-05-2018 06:48 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 06:41 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 04:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Not trying to throw shade on these AAC programs, just pointing out that C-USA is headed in the right direction....

After the end of the 2013 season, ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane left C-USA for the AAC. Since joining the AAC, those three have combined to finish with 2 winning seasons and 3 bowl appearances.

While the teams C-USA added to replace them (FAU, WKU, and MT) have combined to finish with 7 winning seasons and 8 bowl appearances in the same time period.

I think our current line up is getting stronger.

"Heading in the right direction" is very subjective.

ECU, Tulsa, Tulane, Houston, UCF, and Memphis are much more house hold names in college athletics than UTSA, Charlotte, UNT, ODU, and F_U...so no, CUSA is not better off. The money proves this.

Now, if your saying UNT is in much better shape now than y'all were in 2012 then you've got an argument.

Do you think C-USA football would be better off if we still had ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane, instead of WKU, MT, and FAU? Because that is the basis of this entire thread.

I believe C-USA is better off, but you are free to have your own opinion.

Y'all are talking about two different things - sets and subsets. Both can be true.

Yes CUSA won the very last reshuffle. Doesn’t make up enough to counteract Houston, Memphis, and UCF the year before.

(06-05-2018 05:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 05:13 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Point still stands. CUSA is not better off.

We are better off then if we would have kept those three programs. Trading ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane for WKU, MT, and FAU looks like a genius move right now. Of course we did add Charlotte too. No one bats 1.000. Man, the butt hurt is strong with some of you AAC fans.

Here is the map that inspired my thread.

All programs go through peaks and valleys. Those cusa programs will eventually fall and ecu and Tulsa will rise again. Few programs are good every year.

Yeah, take all 6 into account; Houston, Memphis, UCF, ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane. Houston and Memphis were irreplaceable. The rest, not as much.

clt says Charlotte is trending up.

(06-05-2018 07:01 PM)Observer1 Wrote:  Yes CUSA won the very last reshuffle. Doesn’t make up enough to counteract Houston, Memphis, and UCF the year before.

That is the entire point of the thread. C-USA would be in a world of hurt if Tulsa, ECU, and Tulane hadn't left. So, we are better off.

Wrong. ECU and Tulsa at minimum would have been bowl teams for a year or two had they stayed.

And the AAC is clobbering us in tv dollars.. so no. At least Marshall, usm, utep, UAB, and rice are not better off financially since the reshuffle; although unt might be

And my apologies for the use of the lower case letters in the schools names. No disrespect intended. I'm just being lazy tonight.

(06-05-2018 07:43 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  And the AAC is clobbering us in tv dollars.. so no. At least Marshall, usm, utep, UAB, and rice are not better off financially since the reshuffle; although unt might be

But that money was not because of the last 3 schools that left. CUSA was still cashing checks off of UofL, TCU and Ciny in 2013 even with them being gone for a few years .

So even if nothing changed in 2013 till today for CUSA money wasn't going to be any different than you get today. Because as we seen in the last couple TV deals..... no one in CUSA is worth investing huge TV dollars on. That includes Marshall, usm, utep, UAB, and rice