(03-04-2015 04:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We are different than the G4. I see nothing wrong with that.

In what way are you different/better than the MWC?

Academics, financial resources, market size, attendance ... and I'd bet my pension that our computer rankings in FB will (on average) be superior in most years. The Big East used to blow away the MWC in the computer rankings every year. Losing Syracuse & Pitt and picking up UCF, ECU, and Memphis won't hurt us.

We can also talk about BB. We have UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, Memphis, and a pretty good SMU program. The MWC isn't even on the same planet with us in BB.

(03-04-2015 07:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We are different than the G4. I see nothing wrong with that.

In what way are you different/better than the MWC?

Academics, financial resources, market size, attendance ... and I'd bet my pension that our computer rankings in FB will (on average) be superior in most years. The Big East used to blow away the MWC in the computer rankings every year. Losing Syracuse & Pitt and picking up UCF, ECU, and Memphis won't hurt us.

It already has. Our Sagarin ranking this year was far below it ever was during the Big East years, even far below the 2005-2012 Big East that had lost VT and Miami.

Even last year, 2013, when UCF and Louisville had great years and finished in the top 15, our Sagarin rating was significantly below what it was the last year that we had WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse.

Remember, the 2005-2012 Big east OFTEN finished ahead of other AQ conferences in the computer rankings. Over that period, we were essentially equal to the ACC and B1G. That Big East was, on the field, a real Power conference despite all the bad press we got.

This new AAC is far, far behind the ACC, B1G, or any other Power conferences on the football field.

(03-04-2015 09:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We are different than the G4. I see nothing wrong with that.

In what way are you different/better than the MWC?

Academics, financial resources, market size, attendance ... and I'd bet my pension that our computer rankings in FB will (on average) be superior in most years. The Big East used to blow away the MWC in the computer rankings every year. Losing Syracuse & Pitt and picking up UCF, ECU, and Memphis won't hurt us.

It already has. Our Sagarin ranking this year was far below it ever was during the Big East years, even far below the 2005-2012 Big East that had lost VT and Miami.

Even last year, 2013, when UCF and Louisville had great years and finished in the top 15, our Sagarin rating was significantly below what it was the last year that we had WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse.

Remember, the 2005-2012 Big east OFTEN finished ahead of other AQ conferences in the computer rankings. Over that period, we were essentially equal to the ACC and B1G. That Big East was, on the field, a real Power conference despite all the bad press we got.

This new AAC is far, far behind the ACC, B1G, or any other Power conferences on the football field.

the only big east football school even ranked in the final top 25 was louisville. this years louisville team was a weaker version than the one that didnt win the AAC before joining the acc. former big east schools, regardless of what conference they landed in have been exposed as just awful. completely expected and predicted.

(03-04-2015 07:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:14 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  Yeah, our bottom half was not pretty.

Not only that, though. The top AAC teams were pretty soft too. The three AAC co-champs went 1-2 in bowl games, with two of them losing decisively to bad ACC teams, and the one that won needed a 53-yard field goal at the buzzer to send their game into OT before they could win. And fourth-place finisher ECU lost to a basket-case Florida team in their bowl game.

So you combine a soft top with an awful bottom, and you get ... the 3rd place G5 conference.

Wouldn't call the nc state win decisive but that's me. The first half of the game, now that was a decisive beat down.

(03-04-2015 07:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:14 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  Yeah, our bottom half was not pretty.

Not only that, though. The top AAC teams were pretty soft too. The three AAC co-champs went 1-2 in bowl games, with two of them losing decisively to bad ACC teams, and the one that won needed a 53-yard field goal at the buzzer to send their game into OT before they could win. And fourth-place finisher ECU lost to a basket-case Florida team in their bowl game.

So you combine a soft top with an awful bottom, and you get ... the 3rd place G5 conference.

The top 4 AAC teams went 2-2 vs P5 teams and BYU during bowl season. Keep in mind any team they played is considered a P5 team by power conferences for scheduling purposes and each opponent had managed to win at least 6 or more games (so these were not "bad" teams). Given the overall G5 record vs the P5/BYU, going 2-2 against .500 or above P5 teams isn't bad and would indicate the top wasn't soft at all (at least by G5 standards). Keep in mind, no other G5 conference played anywhere near that level of competition 4 deep into thier bowl line up.

(03-04-2015 09:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We are different than the G4. I see nothing wrong with that.

In what way are you different/better than the MWC?

Academics, financial resources, market size, attendance ... and I'd bet my pension that our computer rankings in FB will (on average) be superior in most years. The Big East used to blow away the MWC in the computer rankings every year. Losing Syracuse & Pitt and picking up UCF, ECU, and Memphis won't hurt us.

It already has. Our Sagarin ranking this year was far below it ever was during the Big East years, even far below the 2005-2012 Big East that had lost VT and Miami.

Even last year, 2013, when UCF and Louisville had great years and finished in the top 15, our Sagarin rating was significantly below what it was the last year that we had WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse.

Remember, the 2005-2012 Big east OFTEN finished ahead of other AQ conferences in the computer rankings. Over that period, we were essentially equal to the ACC and B1G. That Big East was, on the field, a real Power conference despite all the bad press we got.

This new AAC is far, far behind the ACC, B1G, or any other Power conferences on the football field.

The question wasn't if the AAC could keep up with the ACC or Big 10 (like the Big a East used to). The question was whether the AAC was different than the MWC. My answer was that it is and it will remain that way.

Navy joins this year and I expect improvements from UConn, SMU, USF from bad years. We'll be fine in FB. We'll be balanced, like the Big East used to be. The MWC will be Boise and six or seven wretched teams at the bottom to drag their overall rankings down.

Our conference is just 20 months old. Things will slowly get better. Other conferences have been together much, much longer than that.

(03-04-2015 09:22 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 09:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We are different than the G4. I see nothing wrong with that.

In what way are you different/better than the MWC?

Academics, financial resources, market size, attendance ... and I'd bet my pension that our computer rankings in FB will (on average) be superior in most years. The Big East used to blow away the MWC in the computer rankings every year. Losing Syracuse & Pitt and picking up UCF, ECU, and Memphis won't hurt us.

It already has. Our Sagarin ranking this year was far below it ever was during the Big East years, even far below the 2005-2012 Big East that had lost VT and Miami.

Even last year, 2013, when UCF and Louisville had great years and finished in the top 15, our Sagarin rating was significantly below what it was the last year that we had WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse.

Remember, the 2005-2012 Big east OFTEN finished ahead of other AQ conferences in the computer rankings. Over that period, we were essentially equal to the ACC and B1G. That Big East was, on the field, a real Power conference despite all the bad press we got.

This new AAC is far, far behind the ACC, B1G, or any other Power conferences on the football field.

the only big east football school even ranked in the final top 25 was louisville. this years louisville team was a weaker version than the one that didnt win the AAC before joining the acc. former big east schools, regardless of what conference they landed in have been exposed as just awful. completely expected and predicted.

For the 99th time, you can't say UConn is bad now so they were bad under Edsall. We were in the top 30 under Edsall. After he left, the FB program was essentially dismantled by bad coaching. In 2014, we were ranked about #115.

The UConn team you saw last year is not the same as what we had 5 or 6 years ago. Some of those older UConn teams would walked to a C-USA title.

(03-04-2015 11:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 09:22 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 09:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  In what way are you different/better than the MWC?

Academics, financial resources, market size, attendance ... and I'd bet my pension that our computer rankings in FB will (on average) be superior in most years. The Big East used to blow away the MWC in the computer rankings every year. Losing Syracuse & Pitt and picking up UCF, ECU, and Memphis won't hurt us.

It already has. Our Sagarin ranking this year was far below it ever was during the Big East years, even far below the 2005-2012 Big East that had lost VT and Miami.

Even last year, 2013, when UCF and Louisville had great years and finished in the top 15, our Sagarin rating was significantly below what it was the last year that we had WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse.

Remember, the 2005-2012 Big east OFTEN finished ahead of other AQ conferences in the computer rankings. Over that period, we were essentially equal to the ACC and B1G. That Big East was, on the field, a real Power conference despite all the bad press we got.

This new AAC is far, far behind the ACC, B1G, or any other Power conferences on the football field.

the only big east football school even ranked in the final top 25 was louisville. this years louisville team was a weaker version than the one that didnt win the AAC before joining the acc. former big east schools, regardless of what conference they landed in have been exposed as just awful. completely expected and predicted.

For the 99th time, you can't say UConn is bad now so they were bad under Edsall. We were in the top 30 under Edsall. After he left, the FB program was essentially dismantled by bad coaching. In 2014, we were ranked about #115.

The UConn team you saw last year is not the same as what we had 5 or 6 years ago. Some of those older UConn teams would walked to a C-USA title.

Because uconn beat a 7-5 south carilina team in bham. What big game has uconn ever won over anyone other than weak big east teams. Seriously ever. Put all those awful big east teams back un a conference with uconn and you would be world beaters again. Come on man

(03-04-2015 09:22 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 09:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:00 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-23-2015 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  We are different than the G4. I see nothing wrong with that.

In what way are you different/better than the MWC?

Academics, financial resources, market size, attendance ... and I'd bet my pension that our computer rankings in FB will (on average) be superior in most years. The Big East used to blow away the MWC in the computer rankings every year. Losing Syracuse & Pitt and picking up UCF, ECU, and Memphis won't hurt us.

It already has. Our Sagarin ranking this year was far below it ever was during the Big East years, even far below the 2005-2012 Big East that had lost VT and Miami.

Even last year, 2013, when UCF and Louisville had great years and finished in the top 15, our Sagarin rating was significantly below what it was the last year that we had WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse.

Remember, the 2005-2012 Big east OFTEN finished ahead of other AQ conferences in the computer rankings. Over that period, we were essentially equal to the ACC and B1G. That Big East was, on the field, a real Power conference despite all the bad press we got.

This new AAC is far, far behind the ACC, B1G, or any other Power conferences on the football field.

the only big east football school even ranked in the final top 25 was louisville. this years louisville team was a weaker version than the one that didnt win the AAC before joining the acc. former big east schools, regardless of what conference they landed in have been exposed as just awful. completely expected and predicted.

Maybe those schools have gone downhill, but the fact of the matter is that between 2005-2012, the average Big East performance on the football field was power-level, and far better than the AAC was this year, or last.

(03-04-2015 09:27 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:14 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  Yeah, our bottom half was not pretty.

Not only that, though. The top AAC teams were pretty soft too. The three AAC co-champs went 1-2 in bowl games, with two of them losing decisively to bad ACC teams, and the one that won needed a 53-yard field goal at the buzzer to send their game into OT before they could win. And fourth-place finisher ECU lost to a basket-case Florida team in their bowl game.

So you combine a soft top with an awful bottom, and you get ... the 3rd place G5 conference.

Wouldn't call the nc state win decisive but that's me. The first half of the game, now that was a decisive beat down.

Come on. NC State led 34-13 with 12 minutes to go in the game. UCF scored a garbage TD with a minute and change left to make the final score more respectable, but this game wasn't in doubt almost the whole second half.

State ran far more effectively and threw far more effectively, they chewed up a defense that was regarded as one of the best in the AAC. Heck, NC State had 100+ more yards despite playing the whole 4th quarter in a shell while UCF flung the ball around desperately. Outplayed UCF in every facet.

Methinks AAC teams are getting big in the britches... you're still a G5 school kiddos, just like us so don't forget that. Unless you're Cincinnati, no AAC team has much bragging rights in football

(03-04-2015 11:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:14 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  Yeah, our bottom half was not pretty.

Not only that, though. The top AAC teams were pretty soft too. The three AAC co-champs went 1-2 in bowl games, with two of them losing decisively to bad ACC teams, and the one that won needed a 53-yard field goal at the buzzer to send their game into OT before they could win. And fourth-place finisher ECU lost to a basket-case Florida team in their bowl game.

So you combine a soft top with an awful bottom, and you get ... the 3rd place G5 conference.

The top 4 AAC teams went 2-2 vs P5 teams and BYU during bowl season. Keep in mind any team they played is considered a P5 team by power conferences for scheduling purposes and each opponent had managed to win at least 6 or more games (so these were not "bad" teams). Given the overall G5 record vs the P5/BYU, going 2-2 against .500 or above P5 teams isn't bad and would indicate the top wasn't soft at all (at least by G5 standards). Keep in mind, no other G5 conference played anywhere near that level of competition 4 deep into thier bowl line up.

If you are going to count Houston as "top 4", you have to count ECU as well, so that makes it 1-3 versus the P5. And look at the records of those four P5 teams going in to the bowl games:

Pitt: 6-6 (4-4)
Florida: 6-6 (4-4)
VT: 6-6 (3-5)
NC State: 7-5 (3-5)

Sorry, but those P5 teams went a bad 14-18 within their conferences, these were bottom of the barrel, barely bowl eligible teams. And yet how did the AAC do? Three clear-cut losses, and the only game we won was Houston against Pitt, a miracle game that Pitt led by 20 points with about 6 minutes left. Didn't Houston need to convert TWO onside kicks in that one?

IIRC, Pitt scored to go up 34-13, kicked off, and then didn't get the ball back again until they were behind! In 40 years of watching football I never recall seeing that. Just about the luckiest win you'll ever see.

No way to spin it: Our bowl season versus the P5 was turrible, and combined with our abjectly bad bottom, resulted in a 3rd place finish.

(03-05-2015 01:13 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Methinks AAC teams are getting big in the britches... you're still a G5 school kiddos, just like us so don't forget that. Unless you're Cincinnati, no AAC team has much bragging rights in football

I'm not sure what bragging rights Cincy has in football?

(03-05-2015 01:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:13 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Methinks AAC teams are getting big in the britches... you're still a G5 school kiddos, just like us so don't forget that. Unless you're Cincinnati, no AAC team has much bragging rights in football

I'm not sure what bragging rights Cincy has in football?

More than anything else in the AAC. I feel like people on that board strut around like they're an "unofficial" p6... when that is not the case. Feeder conference for the p5 does not equal p5...

(03-04-2015 11:34 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Our conference is just 20 months old. Things will slowly get better. Other conferences have been together much, much longer than that.

This is an interesting idea: Do conferences somehow 'get better' over time? Is there a synergy effect, or is a "conference" never more nor less than the sum of its schools?

Maybe if a conference develops a rep as the best, then lesser schools within it can attract more talent. E.g., maybe over the past 5 years, schools like Ole Miss and Mississippi State have been able to sign better recruits than in the past by being able to say "you'll be playing in the best conference, the SEC"?

Maybe?

(03-05-2015 01:27 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:13 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Methinks AAC teams are getting big in the britches... you're still a G5 school kiddos, just like us so don't forget that. Unless you're Cincinnati, no AAC team has much bragging rights in football

I'm not sure what bragging rights Cincy has in football?

More than anything else in the AAC. I feel like people on that board strut around like they're an "unofficial" p6... when that is not the case. Feeder conference for the p5 does not equal p5...

Since the AAC finished 3rd in the G5 standings this year, our immediate focus should be on besting other G5 conferences. Anyone who talks about us in the same ballpark with the P5 right now is crazy.

(03-05-2015 01:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:27 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:13 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Methinks AAC teams are getting big in the britches... you're still a G5 school kiddos, just like us so don't forget that. Unless you're Cincinnati, no AAC team has much bragging rights in football

I'm not sure what bragging rights Cincy has in football?

More than anything else in the AAC. I feel like people on that board strut around like they're an "unofficial" p6... when that is not the case. Feeder conference for the p5 does not equal p5...

Since the AAC finished 3rd in the G5 standings this year, our immediate focus should be on besting other G5 conferences. The P5 is over the horizon for us right now.

Maybe I'm just catching some of the more pompous jerks from the boards them, but when i mentioned a few teams i think could fill the gaps there of they got raided by the big 12 (NIU, UB, Marshall, Toledo) i was immediately blasted for posting such horrible suggestions. They dont seem horrible... in fact quite a few make a good bit of sense

I love the jerks from the Sunbelt and CUSA taking shots at the AAC. AAC Moderators, why do you follow up on the Sunbelt and CUSA board band them permanently from the AAC board when they take shots at our conference.as both their boards do To us if anything near negative is said about their two conferences even if true! You know both are jealous and desperately want to get in the AAC. Just a suggestion!

(03-05-2015 01:33 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:27 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:13 AM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Methinks AAC teams are getting big in the britches... you're still a G5 school kiddos, just like us so don't forget that. Unless you're Cincinnati, no AAC team has much bragging rights in football

I'm not sure what bragging rights Cincy has in football?

More than anything else in the AAC. I feel like people on that board strut around like they're an "unofficial" p6... when that is not the case. Feeder conference for the p5 does not equal p5...

Since the AAC finished 3rd in the G5 standings this year, our immediate focus should be on besting other G5 conferences. The P5 is over the horizon for us right now.

Maybe I'm just catching some of the more pompous jerks from the boards them, but when i mentioned a few teams i think could fill the gaps there of they got raided by the big 12 (NIU, UB, Marshall, Toledo) i was immediately blasted for posting such horrible suggestions. They dont seem horrible... in fact quite a few make a good bit of sense

I think the thing that's ignored is the very significant difference in budgets. The P5 are able to pay for better coaching, build better facilities---and soon will be able to offer a better package of benefits directly to student athletes. The AAC athletic budgets probably average around 40 million. That's quite a bit more than most MAC, Sunbelt, and CUSA budgets (heck, 40 million is significantly more than a lot of the MW budgets). Over time, that type of financial advantage will factor into the on field G5 results.

Look at Marshall---they are just now starting to win in CUSA. Might the fact that they are now one of he highest budgets in CUSA instead of one of the lowest be part of the reason? I believe the next two highest budgets in CUSA are Rice and Old Dominion. Coincidentally, Rice is already a strong force in CUSA football---I have a feeling ODU soon will be as well.

LMAO! Since this AAC thread was oddly moved here, the comments have been interesting to say the least.