Damn right, Attack. Nice post.

(04-20-2014 06:39 PM)mwp1023 Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 05:36 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Aresco...meh

Nearly all of the problems this conference has faced is because of meatball the previous commish. Look at the mess Aresco had to cleanup.

Luckily the AAC has turned lemons into lemonade and we are continuing to get better.

Yes...both of the prior commish's of the BE did not fully recognize the value of all sports membership and continued to pander to the basketball schools.

The reason the American is going to work is the all sports memberships AND the commitment of the schools in the conference. Look at each stepping up their game...SMU in basketball, Tulsa and Houston with their hires, Tulane and Houston with their new stadiums....ECU with first ever basketball investment. While come like Cincy and UConn justify their investments for the sake of a P5 bid (that is probably a long way off), the others are doing it to compete within the conference. Those investments are going to pay off with P5 like success on the court/field (it remains to be seen whether fans will buy in, but early returns at SMU are good).

(04-21-2014 08:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:31 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The American is the old BE. Uconn built their program in the old BE.

But it isn't. And FWIW, the new Big East isn't either. Radically different basketball conferences.

Well, Quo---we all know you would proudly lay any losses directly at the feet of the AAC and proclaim them to be indicative of the overall strength of the league. The subtext of your thought process is quite telling. Your perfectly willing to throw "facts" against the wall to tear down the league. Then when the facts don't fit the narrative, the facts are not really the facts. So, how many years does UConn need to be in the AAC to count as an AAC school?

My comment is based entirely on facts: The fact that the AAC is a new conference and thus it is not reasonable to say UConn "cut its teeth" in the AAC the way say a Duke has in the ACC. I think my Duke-to-MAC example makes the point pretty clear.

And I have already said that UCF's win in the Fiesta was something the AAC could definitely lay a claim to. Unlike UConn, UCF was not an already-established football power. They didn't develop their strength in another league because they had no strength.

Plus, whereas UConn was demoted to a weaker basketball conference (AAC is clearly weaker than the old Big East), UCF football was promoted from a lesser football league to a clearly stronger one, and thus one could definitely make the argument that playing in the stronger AAC toughened UCF up for facing an AQ opponent like Baylor in the BCS bowl game.

(04-21-2014 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 08:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:31 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The American is the old BE. Uconn built their program in the old BE.

But it isn't. And FWIW, the new Big East isn't either. Radically different basketball conferences.

Well, Quo---we all know you would proudly lay any losses directly at the feet of the AAC and proclaim them to be indicative of the overall strength of the league. The subtext of your thought process is quite telling. Your perfectly willing to throw "facts" against the wall to tear down the league. Then when the facts don't fit the narrative, the facts are not really the facts. So, how many years does UConn need to be in the AAC to count as an AAC school?

My comment is based entirely on facts: The fact that the AAC is a new conference and thus it is not reasonable to say UConn "cut its teeth" in the AAC the way say a Duke has in the ACC. I think my Duke-to-MAC example makes the point pretty clear.

And I have already said that UCF's win in the Fiesta was something the AAC could definitely lay a claim to. Unlike UConn, UCF was not an already-established football power. They didn't develop their strength in another league because they had no strength.

Plus, whereas UConn was demoted to a weaker basketball conference (AAC is clearly weaker than the old Big East), UCF football was promoted from a lesser football league to a clearly stronger one, and thus one could definitely make the argument that playing in the stronger AAC toughened UCF up for facing an AQ opponent like Baylor in the BCS bowl game.

Where do you come up with this stuff? So, in your world, if Creighton would have made a run with McDermott... It would count for the nbe, because its a slightly better league. But SINCE UCONN made a run with an AAC patch, the conference doesn't get to share in that accomplishment, because the conference isn't as strong as the amalgamation of the old Big East? Nevermind the fact that SMU beat them twice, and they didn't run through the conference schedule unscathed. That doesn't qualify as "cutting their teeth" on AAC competition.

What a dewsh..

(04-21-2014 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 08:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:31 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The American is the old BE. Uconn built their program in the old BE.

But it isn't. And FWIW, the new Big East isn't either. Radically different basketball conferences.

Well, Quo---we all know you would proudly lay any losses directly at the feet of the AAC and proclaim them to be indicative of the overall strength of the league. The subtext of your thought process is quite telling. Your perfectly willing to throw "facts" against the wall to tear down the league. Then when the facts don't fit the narrative, the facts are not really the facts. So, how many years does UConn need to be in the AAC to count as an AAC school?

My comment is based entirely on facts: The fact that the AAC is a new conference and thus it is not reasonable to say UConn "cut its teeth" in the AAC the way say a Duke has in the ACC. I think my Duke-to-MAC example makes the point pretty clear.

And I have already said that UCF's win in the Fiesta was something the AAC could definitely lay a claim to. Unlike UConn, UCF was not an already-established football power. They didn't develop their strength in another league because they had no strength.

Plus, whereas UConn was demoted to a weaker basketball conference (AAC is clearly weaker than the old Big East), UCF football was promoted from a lesser football league to a clearly stronger one, and thus one could definitely make the argument that playing in the stronger AAC toughened UCF up for facing an AQ opponent like Baylor in the BCS bowl game.

Who toughened UCF up? The same programs they played in CUSA + UConn (haha), USF (haha), and Temple?

(04-21-2014 09:26 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 08:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:31 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The American is the old BE. Uconn built their program in the old BE.

But it isn't. And FWIW, the new Big East isn't either. Radically different basketball conferences.

Well, Quo---we all know you would proudly lay any losses directly at the feet of the AAC and proclaim them to be indicative of the overall strength of the league. The subtext of your thought process is quite telling. Your perfectly willing to throw "facts" against the wall to tear down the league. Then when the facts don't fit the narrative, the facts are not really the facts. So, how many years does UConn need to be in the AAC to count as an AAC school?

My comment is based entirely on facts: The fact that the AAC is a new conference and thus it is not reasonable to say UConn "cut its teeth" in the AAC the way say a Duke has in the ACC. I think my Duke-to-MAC example makes the point pretty clear.

And I have already said that UCF's win in the Fiesta was something the AAC could definitely lay a claim to. Unlike UConn, UCF was not an already-established football power. They didn't develop their strength in another league because they had no strength.

Plus, whereas UConn was demoted to a weaker basketball conference (AAC is clearly weaker than the old Big East), UCF football was promoted from a lesser football league to a clearly stronger one, and thus one could definitely make the argument that playing in the stronger AAC toughened UCF up for facing an AQ opponent like Baylor in the BCS bowl game.

Where do you come up with this stuff? So, in your world, if Creighton would have made a run with McDermott... It would count for the nbe, because its a slightly better league. But SINCE UCONN made a run with an AAC patch, the conference doesn't get to share in that accomplishment, because the conference isn't as strong as the amalgamation of the old Big East?

Yes, for once you understand.

(04-21-2014 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:49 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  "You can never really expect this level of success," Aresco said. "We thought we would be good and have a fighting chance. I don't think anybody can take any swipes at us after what we've done."

I just don't get this notion of crediting UConn success to the AAC.

Blah blah blah. Same old song from you.... Popping up right on schedule in any positive thread.

An American team won. Period. Get over it. If we lost the vultures would be circling. If LV or RU won, we'd never hear the end of the 'talent leaving this conference' story...

Well that didn't happen. An AAC team that is STAYING, won the nat championship.

Yes Virginia, that (coupled with the UCF BCS win) most definitely says something about the quality of the CONFERENCE. Your analogies are flawed becuase of the unique makeup of the AAC, we were (by far) the most decimated conference due to realignment.

Of course I fully acknowledge here that UConn rocks. And I'm sure glad they are staying in the AAC.

Every day it's more nonsense and flawed logic from you to try and tear down the American. Too bad for you, it ain't working baby!

(04-21-2014 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 09:26 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 08:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But it isn't. And FWIW, the new Big East isn't either. Radically different basketball conferences.

Well, Quo---we all know you would proudly lay any losses directly at the feet of the AAC and proclaim them to be indicative of the overall strength of the league. The subtext of your thought process is quite telling. Your perfectly willing to throw "facts" against the wall to tear down the league. Then when the facts don't fit the narrative, the facts are not really the facts. So, how many years does UConn need to be in the AAC to count as an AAC school?

My comment is based entirely on facts: The fact that the AAC is a new conference and thus it is not reasonable to say UConn "cut its teeth" in the AAC the way say a Duke has in the ACC. I think my Duke-to-MAC example makes the point pretty clear.

And I have already said that UCF's win in the Fiesta was something the AAC could definitely lay a claim to. Unlike UConn, UCF was not an already-established football power. They didn't develop their strength in another league because they had no strength.

Plus, whereas UConn was demoted to a weaker basketball conference (AAC is clearly weaker than the old Big East), UCF football was promoted from a lesser football league to a clearly stronger one, and thus one could definitely make the argument that playing in the stronger AAC toughened UCF up for facing an AQ opponent like Baylor in the BCS bowl game.

Where do you come up with this stuff? So, in your world, if Creighton would have made a run with McDermott... It would count for the nbe, because its a slightly better league. But SINCE UCONN made a run with an AAC patch, the conference doesn't get to share in that accomplishment, because the conference isn't as strong as the amalgamation of the old Big East?

Yes, for once you understand.

I repeated that line to highlight the absurdity of your logic... Especially, after you were crowing about how the AAC struggled in the opening round.

As Attack said, you can't have it both ways.

Although, I know they don't call you fingercuffs for nothing.

(04-21-2014 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 08:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:31 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The American is the old BE. Uconn built their program in the old BE.

But it isn't. And FWIW, the new Big East isn't either. Radically different basketball conferences.

Well, Quo---we all know you would proudly lay any losses directly at the feet of the AAC and proclaim them to be indicative of the overall strength of the league. The subtext of your thought process is quite telling. Your perfectly willing to throw "facts" against the wall to tear down the league. Then when the facts don't fit the narrative, the facts are not really the facts. So, how many years does UConn need to be in the AAC to count as an AAC school?

My comment is based entirely on facts: The fact that the AAC is a new conference and thus it is not reasonable to say UConn "cut its teeth" in the AAC the way say a Duke has in the ACC. I think my Duke-to-MAC example makes the point pretty clear.

And I have already said that UCF's win in the Fiesta was something the AAC could definitely lay a claim to. Unlike UConn, UCF was not an already-established football power. They didn't develop their strength in another league because they had no strength.

Plus, whereas UConn was demoted to a weaker basketball conference (AAC is clearly weaker than the old Big East), UCF football was promoted from a lesser football league to a clearly stronger one, and thus one could definitely make the argument that playing in the stronger AAC toughened UCF up for facing an AQ opponent like Baylor in the BCS bowl game.

Did UConn play an AAC schedule this year? (A: yes)
Did UConn win the AAC this year (A:no)
Did they have some difficulty in AAC play (A: yes, finished tied for 3rd with 6 losses).
Aid UConn even win AAC tourn (A. No)

But yet UConn did win NC. Based on the above, they ARE a product of the AAC. (And not even the best team in the regular season/tournament)

UConn won two NCs this year with essentially the same organization and structure that it had won the previous ones with. The major change was Ollie, but as everyone knows the staff beneath him stayed the same.

The games you play in conference don't "build" a program. It speaks to relative strength of the conference that UConn had trouble with Louisville, Cincy, SMU and Houston. But to say that the conference "produced" a national champion is flat out overstating what role the AAC had in that.

Five years from now, if Houston wins a national championship, then you could maybe say that.

(04-21-2014 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:49 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  "You can never really expect this level of success," Aresco said. "We thought we would be good and have a fighting chance. I don't think anybody can take any swipes at us after what we've done."

I just don't get this notion of crediting UConn success to the AAC. If Duke was suddenly a member of the MAC next year, and won the national title, it would be silly to characterize that as a MAC victory, right? What would the MAC have had to do with it?

If a school like Michigan State wins the national title, it's fair to give the B1G some credit for that, because MSU is a B1G school through and through. Their program is a product of many years of competing in the B1G. That competition has shaped their program and prepared it for national combat. Same was true of UConn in the old Big East, North Carolina and the ACC, etc.

But that is not true of the AAC, since this is a new conference with radically different membership and of just one year tenure.

So if Cuse, Pitt or Louisville wins a NC, who gets the credit?

UConn is a member of this league, the point is the value of the TV contract and other broadcasting/revenue streams....that is what is being sold and the networks got a steal. Not to mention the recruiting, donations, ticket sale and coaching hiring effects that arise FOR OTHER MEMBERS as a result of a team winning a championship and giving the league exposure. It's really a simple concept to understand.

(04-21-2014 10:40 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:49 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  "You can never really expect this level of success," Aresco said. "We thought we would be good and have a fighting chance. I don't think anybody can take any swipes at us after what we've done."

I just don't get this notion of crediting UConn success to the AAC. If Duke was suddenly a member of the MAC next year, and won the national title, it would be silly to characterize that as a MAC victory, right? What would the MAC have had to do with it?

If a school like Michigan State wins the national title, it's fair to give the B1G some credit for that, because MSU is a B1G school through and through. Their program is a product of many years of competing in the B1G. That competition has shaped their program and prepared it for national combat. Same was true of UConn in the old Big East, North Carolina and the ACC, etc.

But that is not true of the AAC, since this is a new conference with radically different membership and of just one year tenure.

So if Cuse, Pitt or Louisville wins a NC, who gets the credit?

UConn is a member of this league, the point is the value of the TV contract and other broadcasting/revenue streams....that is what is being sold and the networks got a steal. Not to mention the recruiting, donations, ticket sale and coaching hiring effects that arise FOR OTHER MEMBERS as a result of a team winning a championship and giving the league exposure. It's really a simple concept to understand.

Having a very recent NC winner is a feather in the cap for the conference when it comes to TV negotiations. But the notion that the AAC "produced" a NC is highly questionable.

The more sober and objective way to look at it is to observe that in the conference's first year of existence, a basketball program won a national championship with players, coaches and a structure that was formed in a different conference.

(04-21-2014 10:49 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 10:40 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:49 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  "You can never really expect this level of success," Aresco said. "We thought we would be good and have a fighting chance. I don't think anybody can take any swipes at us after what we've done."

I just don't get this notion of crediting UConn success to the AAC. If Duke was suddenly a member of the MAC next year, and won the national title, it would be silly to characterize that as a MAC victory, right? What would the MAC have had to do with it?

If a school like Michigan State wins the national title, it's fair to give the B1G some credit for that, because MSU is a B1G school through and through. Their program is a product of many years of competing in the B1G. That competition has shaped their program and prepared it for national combat. Same was true of UConn in the old Big East, North Carolina and the ACC, etc.

But that is not true of the AAC, since this is a new conference with radically different membership and of just one year tenure.

So if Cuse, Pitt or Louisville wins a NC, who gets the credit?

UConn is a member of this league, the point is the value of the TV contract and other broadcasting/revenue streams....that is what is being sold and the networks got a steal. Not to mention the recruiting, donations, ticket sale and coaching hiring effects that arise FOR OTHER MEMBERS as a result of a team winning a championship and giving the league exposure. It's really a simple concept to understand.

Having a very recent NC winner is a feather in the cap for the conference when it comes to TV negotiations. But the notion that the AAC "produced" a NC is highly questionable.

The more sober and objective way to look at it is to observe that in the conference's first year of existence, a basketball program won a national championship with players, coaches and a structure that was formed in a different conference.

Don't you just love these ploys for attention from those two.

LOOK AT THE CLOWNS!! LOOK AT THE CLOWNS!!



We were invited to UCONN's league. Not the other way around.

I have to say that there is some merit to the idea that UConn's basketball success is decoupled from the AAC. I know thats not a popular opinion, BT there is a ring of truth to that. UConn basketball already had 3 national championships prior to playing in the AAC. Just having USF, Cincy, and Temple still in the same league does not make it "the same as the old BE". I will say however that the real upside is that UConn is an AAC team that is not leaving the conference in the forseeable future, and so their latest NC is definitely a feather in the AAC's hat, regardless of how\where UCONN cut their teeth in big time basketball. The future is bright I guess is my point. UCONN has a chance to be the dominant team in a conference that has good potential.

(04-21-2014 11:30 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I have to say that there is some merit to the idea that UConn's basketball success is decoupled from the AAC. I know thats not a popular opinion, BT there is a ring of truth to that. UConn basketball already had 3 national championships prior to playing in the AAC. Just having USF, Cincy, and Temple still in the same league does not make it "the same as the old BE". I will say however that the real upside is that UConn is an AAC team that is not leaving the conference in the forseeable future, and so their latest NC is definitely a feather in the AAC's hat, regardless of how\where UCONN cut their teeth in big time basketball. The future is bright I guess is my point. UCONN has a chance to be the dominant team in a conference that has good potential.

Nobody even remotely claimed it was the same old Big East. That conference had almost twice as many teams as the AAC.
However, this conference was largely put together by UCONN. ALL of the programs joined UCONN's conference, not the reverse.
These trolls aren't here to offer anything more than to flame threads. This thread was started to recognize the accomplishments of the conference. We all carry the weight of each others successes and failures. That's how it is in conferences. If a program wants to go indy and play an indy schedule than more power to them. They can reap all the glory or scorn. That's life.

Quo and UConnFB are here for nothing more than to belittle our programs. Read my rep points to see how UConnFB thinks.

(04-21-2014 10:49 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 10:40 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:49 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  "You can never really expect this level of success," Aresco said. "We thought we would be good and have a fighting chance. I don't think anybody can take any swipes at us after what we've done."

I just don't get this notion of crediting UConn success to the AAC. If Duke was suddenly a member of the MAC next year, and won the national title, it would be silly to characterize that as a MAC victory, right? What would the MAC have had to do with it?

If a school like Michigan State wins the national title, it's fair to give the B1G some credit for that, because MSU is a B1G school through and through. Their program is a product of many years of competing in the B1G. That competition has shaped their program and prepared it for national combat. Same was true of UConn in the old Big East, North Carolina and the ACC, etc.

But that is not true of the AAC, since this is a new conference with radically different membership and of just one year tenure.

So if Cuse, Pitt or Louisville wins a NC, who gets the credit?

UConn is a member of this league, the point is the value of the TV contract and other broadcasting/revenue streams....that is what is being sold and the networks got a steal. Not to mention the recruiting, donations, ticket sale and coaching hiring effects that arise FOR OTHER MEMBERS as a result of a team winning a championship and giving the league exposure. It's really a simple concept to understand.

Having a very recent NC winner is a feather in the cap for the conference when it comes to TV negotiations. But the notion that the AAC "produced" a NC is highly questionable.

The more sober and objective way to look at it is to observe that in the conference's first year of existence, a basketball program won a national championship with players, coaches and a structure that was formed in a different conference.

The idea that any conference at anytime "produces" a NC is absurd to begin with......this was great for the AAC, established the conference as a high end Bball place (Uconn lost several games).....and I have no clue why trolls or negative people try to spin it in anyway negative. It's flat out stupid IMO. This is another "welcome to the internet" moment I suppose.

You had better believe if cuse had won the nc this year the acc ane espn would be crowing loud and hard. Hell the acc was already taking credit for ville's tourney run this

(04-21-2014 12:09 PM)Tigersmoke Wrote:  You had better believe if cuse had won the nc this year the acc ane espn would be crowing loud and hard. Hell the acc was already taking credit for ville's tourney run this

And they would be just as wrong.

(04-21-2014 11:40 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 11:30 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I have to say that there is some merit to the idea that UConn's basketball success is decoupled from the AAC. I know thats not a popular opinion, BT there is a ring of truth to that. UConn basketball already had 3 national championships prior to playing in the AAC. Just having USF, Cincy, and Temple still in the same league does not make it "the same as the old BE". I will say however that the real upside is that UConn is an AAC team that is not leaving the conference in the forseeable future, and so their latest NC is definitely a feather in the AAC's hat, regardless of how\where UCONN cut their teeth in big time basketball. The future is bright I guess is my point. UCONN has a chance to be the dominant team in a conference that has good potential.

Nobody even remotely claimed it was the same old Big East. That conference had almost twice as many teams as the AAC.
However, this conference was largely put together by UCONN. ALL of the programs joined UCONN's conference, not the reverse.
These trolls aren't here to offer anything more than to flame threads. This thread was started to recognize the accomplishments of the conference. We all carry the weight of each others successes and failures. That's how it is in conferences. If a program wants to go indy and play an indy schedule than more power to them. They can reap all the glory or scorn. That's life.

Quo and UConnFB are here for nothing more than to belittle our programs. Read my rep points to see how UConnFB thinks.

Oh please. Just because I don't believe that the AAC produced this NC doesn't make me a troll. Grow Up.

Technically, everyone did join "UConn's" conference but it's not like that caused a NC to happen. Is it a feather in the AAC's hat? Absolutely. Did it happen because of the strength of the AAC? Absolutely not.

(04-21-2014 11:58 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 10:49 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 10:40 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:49 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  "You can never really expect this level of success," Aresco said. "We thought we would be good and have a fighting chance. I don't think anybody can take any swipes at us after what we've done."

I just don't get this notion of crediting UConn success to the AAC. If Duke was suddenly a member of the MAC next year, and won the national title, it would be silly to characterize that as a MAC victory, right? What would the MAC have had to do with it?

If a school like Michigan State wins the national title, it's fair to give the B1G some credit for that, because MSU is a B1G school through and through. Their program is a product of many years of competing in the B1G. That competition has shaped their program and prepared it for national combat. Same was true of UConn in the old Big East, North Carolina and the ACC, etc.

But that is not true of the AAC, since this is a new conference with radically different membership and of just one year tenure.

So if Cuse, Pitt or Louisville wins a NC, who gets the credit?

UConn is a member of this league, the point is the value of the TV contract and other broadcasting/revenue streams....that is what is being sold and the networks got a steal. Not to mention the recruiting, donations, ticket sale and coaching hiring effects that arise FOR OTHER MEMBERS as a result of a team winning a championship and giving the league exposure. It's really a simple concept to understand.

Having a very recent NC winner is a feather in the cap for the conference when it comes to TV negotiations. But the notion that the AAC "produced" a NC is highly questionable.

The more sober and objective way to look at it is to observe that in the conference's first year of existence, a basketball program won a national championship with players, coaches and a structure that was formed in a different conference.

The idea that any conference at anytime "produces" a NC is absurd to begin with......this was great for the AAC, established the conference as a high end Bball place (Uconn lost several games).....and I have no clue why trolls or negative people try to spin it in anyway negative. It's flat out stupid IMO. This is another "welcome to the internet" moment I suppose.

There is nothing negative to spin. There is just a disagreement on how much a national championship can be attributed to the conference. I say that in year one, almost nothing can be attributed.

It makes more sense to say that UConn won the NC despite being in the AAC, which is really negative, and not really a comment I would endorse.