(04-08-2014 09:54 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  For the AAC, there is still lots of movement with schools switching leagues. This will continue to hurt that leagues perception going forward until all the departing members are gone, new members added, and there are results from the newly configured league.

The BCS era is over, so it is going to be more difficult on the football field because the AAC has to compete with the entire G5 for essentially one playoff bowl spot. There won't be many home-homes with power conference programs either as more of those conferences go to 9 games.

I think one thing that really is huge for the AAC this year was that Louisville didn't just dominate the league. Yes they won basketball, but with what UConn did, that was overshadowed. UCF won the football, not Louisville. You can't under-estimate this fact at all.

The AAC does have to compete with the entire G5 now, but given how poor the SBC and CUSA is now, likely don't have to worry about them. MAC likely goes down a bit with NIU going to be weaker. Leaves really only the MWC to compete against.

(04-08-2014 09:54 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  There won't be many home-homes with power conference programs either as more of those conferences go to 9 games.

Wrong! I don't know about the AAC schools' future schedules, but Boise has home-and-homes with Wazzu, Virginia, Florida State, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, and is completing a home-and-home with Washington in the near future. In fact, FSU cited the playoff as a reason for scheduling us.

Maybe Rutgers will be too scared to schedule good G5 programs (since they'd demolish your mediocre program) but other P5 schools aren't.

(04-08-2014 11:00 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 09:54 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  There won't be many home-homes with power conference programs either as more of those conferences go to 9 games.

Wrong! I don't know about the AAC schools' future schedules, but Boise has home-and-homes with Wazzu, Virginia, Florida State, Oklahoma State, Michigan State, and is completing a home-and-home with Washington in the near future. In fact, FSU cited the playoff as a reason for scheduling us.

Maybe Rutgers will be too scared to schedule good G5 programs (since they'd demolish your mediocre program) but other P5 schools aren't.

Yes, AAC schools have many home/home series scheduled with so called "P5" opponents also.

(04-08-2014 08:39 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:19 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  East Carolina is a better football school than Rutgers. Similar attendance. Better tradition.

Rutgers went to 1 bowl game before 2005. They've been to a few recently, but only have 1 Top 25 finish in history.

Rutgers played a much tougher schedule than ECU over the BCS era. There is a reason they weren't as successful as ECU in terms of wins.

The Big Ten added the superior program, in fact did not consider ECU, nor did the SEC, Big 12 or even ACC.

Let's see. During the BCS era ECU has played WVU, VT, UNC, NC State, South Carolina, UCF, Houston, Maryland, Navy, USF (when they were acutally good), Tulsa, etc. Rutgers has played most of those same teams, except for VT, South Carolina and one or to others.

(04-08-2014 11:52 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 08:39 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:19 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  East Carolina is a better football school than Rutgers. Similar attendance. Better tradition.

Rutgers went to 1 bowl game before 2005. They've been to a few recently, but only have 1 Top 25 finish in history.

Rutgers played a much tougher schedule than ECU over the BCS era. There is a reason they weren't as successful as ECU in terms of wins.

The Big Ten added the superior program, in fact did not consider ECU, nor did the SEC, Big 12 or even ACC.

Let's see. During the BCS era ECU has played WVU, VT, UNC, NC State, South Carolina, UCF, Houston, Maryland, Navy, USF (when they were acutally good), Tulsa, etc. Rutgers has played most of those same teams, except for VT, South Carolina and one or to others.

Not sure if you are serious. ECUs schedule usually included one or two, maybe three BCS teams tops during the BCS era. UCFs year last year was unlike any other over the BCS era and Houston had maybe one stellar yeR in that period but no BCS game. Tulsa?

Rutgers played BC, Miami, SU when they were good, WVU, VT etc all in the same season every season. When some teams left the BE, WVU and UL and Cincinnati were all very strong as was USF and UConn with Edsall. They played all every year plus usually an SEC school like Arkansas, ACC schools like UNC or Maryland, big ten schools like Michigan State and Illinois.

The schedules aren't comparable. One is a BCS AQ schedule and one is a CUSA schedule with one or two BCS programs thrown in.

RU wasn't always good, but they were a solid team under Schiano and did have some standout years. ECU wasn't winning most of those AQ games anyway.

(04-08-2014 12:12 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 11:52 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 08:39 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:19 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  East Carolina is a better football school than Rutgers. Similar attendance. Better tradition.

Rutgers went to 1 bowl game before 2005. They've been to a few recently, but only have 1 Top 25 finish in history.

Rutgers played a much tougher schedule than ECU over the BCS era. There is a reason they weren't as successful as ECU in terms of wins.

The Big Ten added the superior program, in fact did not consider ECU, nor did the SEC, Big 12 or even ACC.

Let's see. During the BCS era ECU has played WVU, VT, UNC, NC State, South Carolina, UCF, Houston, Maryland, Navy, USF (when they were acutally good), Tulsa, etc. Rutgers has played most of those same teams, except for VT, South Carolina and one or to others.

Not sure if you are serious. ECUs schedule usually included one or two, maybe three BCS teams tops during the BCS era. UCFs year last year was unlike any other over the BCS era and Houston had maybe one stellar yeR in that period but no BCS game. Tulsa?

Rutgers played BC, Miami, SU when they were good, WVU, VT etc all in the same season every season. When some teams left the BE, WVU and UL and Cincinnati were all very strong as was USF and UConn with Edsall. They played all every year plus usually an SEC school like Arkansas, ACC schools like UNC or Maryland, big ten schools like Michigan State and Illinois.

The schedules aren't comparable. One is a BCS AQ schedule and one is a CUSA schedule with one or two BCS programs thrown in.

RU wasn't always good, but they were a solid team under Schiano and did have some standout years. ECU wasn't winning most of those AQ games anyway.

Rutgers was DECENT for like 2 years. Every other year they sucked. Playing a good team does not equate to beating a good team. Rutgers has always ridden on the coattails of their conference mates and will continue that tradition in the new conference.

(04-08-2014 12:12 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 11:52 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 08:39 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:19 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  East Carolina is a better football school than Rutgers. Similar attendance. Better tradition.

Rutgers went to 1 bowl game before 2005. They've been to a few recently, but only have 1 Top 25 finish in history.

Rutgers played a much tougher schedule than ECU over the BCS era. There is a reason they weren't as successful as ECU in terms of wins.

The Big Ten added the superior program, in fact did not consider ECU, nor did the SEC, Big 12 or even ACC.

Let's see. During the BCS era ECU has played WVU, VT, UNC, NC State, South Carolina, UCF, Houston, Maryland, Navy, USF (when they were acutally good), Tulsa, etc. Rutgers has played most of those same teams, except for VT, South Carolina and one or to others.

Not sure if you are serious. ECUs schedule usually included one or two, maybe three BCS teams tops during the BCS era. UCFs year last year was unlike any other over the BCS era and Houston had maybe one stellar yeR in that period but no BCS game. Tulsa?

Rutgers played BC, Miami, SU when they were good, WVU, VT etc all in the same season every season. When some teams left the BE, WVU and UL and Cincinnati were all very strong as was USF and UConn with Edsall. They played all every year plus usually an SEC school like Arkansas, ACC schools like UNC or Maryland, big ten schools like Michigan State and Illinois.

The schedules aren't comparable. One is a BCS AQ schedule and one is a CUSA schedule with one or two BCS programs thrown in.

RU wasn't always good, but they were a solid team under Schiano and did have some standout years. ECU wasn't winning most of those AQ games anyway.

I am not sure if you are serious. You are talking crazy about Rutgers, while completely failing to realize that Rutgers got clubbed like a baby seal by those same CUSA teams that ECU routinely played.

Btw, Rutgers was not worth a damn in the BE until BC, VT and Miami had left the BE. And in case you were not aware of it; where do you think that Louisville, Cincinnati and USF came from? Yes that is right; they came from CUSA just like ECU. I still think that you are drunk.

Tougher schedules mean absolutely jackshit when you can't win any of the tough games. It just means you have an excuse to point to when you suck.

ECU > Rutgers. It's not even really a debate except in Jersey, apparently.

(04-08-2014 01:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Tougher schedules mean absolutely jackshit when you can't win any of the tough games. It just means you have an excuse to point to when you suck.

ECU > Rutgers. It's not even really a debate except in Jersey, apparently.

The silly part is that Rutgers didn't even have tougher schedules. ECU played most of the same teams that Rutgers have played over the years: Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, WVU, VT, UCF and Houston. Hell ECU even used to play Miami, Syracuse, Pitt and the rest of that crowd too and that doesn't even include the SEC and ACC schools that ECU scheduled like Wake Forest, South Carolina, North Carolina and N.C. State. ECU also played Boise State, Maryland and UVA.

(04-08-2014 01:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Tougher schedules mean absolutely jackshit when you can't win any of the tough games. It just means you have an excuse to point to when you suck.

ECU > Rutgers. It's not even really a debate except in Jersey, apparently.

Exactly, I never understand the tendency of some fans to brag about the tough opponents that their team played when all they did was lose to those opponents. The strength of your competition only means something if you are beating those teams. Rutgers record vs. some of the teams he listed:

Miami: 0-11
BC: 6-19
Syracuse: 12-27
West Virginia: 4-33
Virginia Tech: 3-12

Overall 25-102, for a sub .250 winning percentage.

(04-08-2014 07:11 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:17 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Uh, no... UCF is a BCS bowl winner and UConn won the basketball title. Great performances by those teams, but the AAC didn't collectively win those. AAC fans are turning into SEC fans with their relentless clinging to other teams' accomplishments.

That's ridiculous. This discussion is about what is, and isn't, a power CONFERENCE. As such, the performance of our conference champion against the best from other conferences... is relevant.

If the AAC fans are a bit jazzed, you might stop and realize that our conference was decimated by realignment more than any other... We even lost our name. We're a new conference, essentially 'demoted'. You bet we've got a conference-wide chip on our shoulder, and perhaps a we have bit more conference unity than you are used to... seeing as how BSU has been through it's share of conferences lately.

"Turning into SEC fans" That's classic. I only wish this was true... lol.

Yep, I was thinking how we all were so wrong thinking that the "Southeastern Conference" won 7 straight national championships in football. It wasn't the SEC.......it was the individual team each year..........so in hindsight, the SEC itself wasn't really a good conference because they "didn't collectively win those championships."

(04-08-2014 02:20 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Tougher schedules mean absolutely jackshit when you can't win any of the tough games. It just means you have an excuse to point to when you suck.

ECU > Rutgers. It's not even really a debate except in Jersey, apparently.

Exactly, I never understand the tendency of some fans to brag about the tough opponents that their team played when all they did was lose to those opponents. The strength of your competition only means something if you are beating those teams. Rutgers record vs. some of the teams he listed:

Miami: 0-11
BC: 6-19
Syracuse: 12-27
West Virginia: 4-33
Virginia Tech: 3-12

Overall 25-102, for a sub .250 winning percentage.

And what was ECUs record against those same teams? And some of the others played? Rutgers hasnt been great. Neither has ECU. ECU played a mid major schedule for years. RU played a BCS schedule.

The BIG added RU. The AAC took awhile, but finally added ECU after they were depleted. That lets you know which program is regarded as the superior program.

(04-08-2014 11:25 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:20 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Tougher schedules mean absolutely jackshit when you can't win any of the tough games. It just means you have an excuse to point to when you suck.

ECU > Rutgers. It's not even really a debate except in Jersey, apparently.

Exactly, I never understand the tendency of some fans to brag about the tough opponents that their team played when all they did was lose to those opponents. The strength of your competition only means something if you are beating those teams. Rutgers record vs. some of the teams he listed:

Miami: 0-11
Syracuse: 12-27
West Virginia: 4-33
Virginia Tech: 3-12

Overall 19-83 0.186

And what was ECUs record against those same teams?

ECU hasn't played BC. All-time, ECU vs:

Syracuse 3-6
Va Tech 5-12
West Va 3-18
Miami 2-9

Total 13-45 0.224

Since 1987, East Carolina is 13-34 against those schools (0.276)

In other series, ECU is:

5-5 vs Duke
12-16 vs NC St
3-12-1 vs UNC
5-12 vs South Carolina
12-5 vs Cincy
4-6 vs Louisville

All-time: 41-56-1 (0.4235)

Since 1987, ECU is 29-30-1 against those schools (0.492)

***************

Since 1987, ECU is then 42-64-1 against UNC, NC St, South Carolina, Va Tech, Syracuse, Miami, Duke, Cincy, West Va & Louisville.

The majority of these games have been on the road. Adjusted for home field, ECU's record is very close to .500 against these schools.

(04-08-2014 11:25 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:20 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:43 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Tougher schedules mean absolutely jackshit when you can't win any of the tough games. It just means you have an excuse to point to when you suck.

ECU > Rutgers. It's not even really a debate except in Jersey, apparently.

Exactly, I never understand the tendency of some fans to brag about the tough opponents that their team played when all they did was lose to those opponents. The strength of your competition only means something if you are beating those teams. Rutgers record vs. some of the teams he listed:

Miami: 0-11
BC: 6-19
Syracuse: 12-27
West Virginia: 4-33
Virginia Tech: 3-12

Overall 25-102, for a sub .250 winning percentage.

And what was ECUs record against those same teams? And some of the others played? Rutgers hasnt been great. Neither has ECU. ECU played a mid major schedule for years. RU played a BCS schedule.

The BIG added RU. The AAC took awhile, but finally added ECU after they were depleted. That lets you know which program is regarded as the superior program.

I keep telling that Rutgers and ECU have pretty much played a common group of opponents over the years. And it is hilarious to claim that Rutgers has been playing some sort of strong BCS schedule during all of this time, when the BCS was just created about a decade ago. On top of that ECU used to play independent football for years where they did a lot of traveling. So I still think that you are drunk.

Miami 2-9
BC DNP
Syracuse 3-7
WVU 3-18
VT 5-13

Army 8-0
Boise State 1-0
UCF 9-3
Cincy 12-5
Hous 7-5
Louisv 4-6
Missou 1-1
NC St 12-16
Pitt 2-2
S.Car 5-12
TCU 2-1
T.Tech 1-0
Virg 2-1
Wake 2-6


So I looked up Rutgers
Army 21-18
Cincy 9-9
UCF 1-1
Fresno 0-2
Hous 0-1
Louis 7-6
Pitt 8-22
Wake F 0-2
Virg 2-3
WVU 4-33 (Rutgers football should be shut down just for that record alone).

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/...onents.php

(04-09-2014 12:09 AM)Hoodoyoubelongto Wrote:  Until they release an over the counter cure to the ECU whore pandemic, spread by the filthy pirate whores of whorish ECU, things will remain tense and itchy.

Whoa . . .

(04-09-2014 12:09 AM)Hoodoyoubelongto Wrote:  Until they release an over the counter cure to the ECU whore pandemic, spread by the filthy pirate whores of whorish ECU, things will remain tense and itchy.

I would expect UVA trolling to be a little more clever.

We get called out on our record against common opponents, yet ours is better..

(04-09-2014 12:15 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:09 AM)Hoodoyoubelongto Wrote:  Until they release an over the counter cure to the ECU whore pandemic, spread by the filthy pirate whores of whorish ECU, things will remain tense and itchy.

I would expect UVA trolling to be a little more clever.

We get called out on our record against a group of teams and it's better than all of the common opponents list..

Banhammer in 3-2-1...

(04-09-2014 12:09 AM)Hoodoyoubelongto Wrote:  Until they release an over the counter cure to the ECU whore pandemic, spread by the filthy pirate whores of whorish ECU, things will remain tense and itchy.

(04-07-2014 11:10 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Espn seriously underspent, and shame on nbc sports for their disgusting bid.

It's what the market was for the AAC at the time. Maybe by the next contract the AAC will have built up the AAC brand and get a much better deal.

To question the strength of ECU football and it's history, clearly shows what little football knowledge they have.