The answer is to switch to Div III athletics. The schools who are "determined to compete" at the highest level are simply saying what is expected of them. They don't want to be seen as quitters. The G5 allowed autonomy because the P5 would have withdrawn from the NCAA otherwise. That's going to happen anyway. Few G5 schools will be able to avoid Div II or Div III demotions when the P5 form their own regulatory body. The March Madness money (owned by NCAA) will disappear when the P5 present their own BB tournament. G5 schools will be excluded from CFP money. TV money will be entirely consumed by the P5. Div I athletics will become extinct. P5 will increase scholarships and apply whatever other devices they need to maximize the product. Scolarship athletes will be scarce outside of the P5. The G5 leaders know this. They are trying to look strong, God bless 'em.

(03-05-2015 04:26 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  The answer is to switch to Div III athletics. The schools who are "determined to compete" at the highest level are simply saying what is expected of them. They don't want to be seen as quitters. The G5 allowed autonomy because the P5 would have withdrawn from the NCAA otherwise. That's going to happen anyway. Few G5 schools will be able to avoid Div II or Div III demotions when the P5 form their own regulatory body. The March Madness money (owned by NCAA) will disappear when the P5 present their own BB tournament. G5 schools will be excluded from CFP money. TV money will be entirely consumed by the P5. Div I athletics will become extinct. P5 will increase scholarships and apply whatever other devices they need to maximize the product. Scolarship athletes will be scarce outside of the P5. The G5 leaders know this. They are trying to look strong, God bless 'em.

Thread explosion in T-minus 10... 9... 8...

(03-05-2015 01:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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?

Works in basketball sometimes. SEton Hall's run with PJ Carlesimo. Miami lately. I"d say Vanderbilt under James Franklin, Ole Miss and Miss STate lately have definitely been using the "play in the No. 1 conference in the nation" pitch with success.

I don't think "play in the No. 1 lower-FBS conference in the country" is going to have the same effect, though. A football player 5 years ago wasn't going to New MExico over UTEP because TCU and IUtah were going to BCS bowls and UCF/ECU/etc weren't.

(03-05-2015 02:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

No question, budget matter significantly. But, if the AAC is raided by the Big 12 for a couple of teams, it's not like we are going to be able to choose between Alabama and USC to replace those teams. If we choose to replace, the teams will come from the G5, and since we are unlikely to be able to lure any MWC teams away, chances are the replacements will have to come from C-USA or the MAC, even if their budgets are low even by AAC standards.

(03-05-2015 05:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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?

Works in basketball sometimes. SEton Hall's run with PJ Carlesimo. Miami lately. I"d say Vanderbilt under James Franklin, Ole Miss and Miss STate lately have definitely been using the "play in the No. 1 conference in the nation" pitch with success.

I don't think "play in the No. 1 lower-FBS conference in the country" is going to have the same effect, though. A football player 5 years ago wasn't going to New MExico over UTEP because TCU and IUtah were going to BCS bowls and UCF/ECU/etc weren't.

Good point. Given how "lumped together" the G5 conferences are in the minds of the media and fans, it may not be realistic to think that recruits can be appealed to by a "MWC is the best of the G5 conferences" sales pitch.

(03-05-2015 01:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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?

The classic case:

Jim Calhoun arrived at UConn in 1986. Prior to that, we were always .500 or below (usually below) in the Big East. He started recruiting by telling the kids:

1) "You'll get to play the best in college BB, like Georgetown and Syracuse".
2) "You'll be on ESPN".

It worked. He upgraded the talent, and won the NIT in 1988 over Ohio State. Then it took off from there. Eventually UConn had twice as many national championships (4) than Georgetown & Syracuse combined (2).

But it all started because UConn was in a good conference and Calhoun took advantage of it. Later on, Pitt took advantage of being in the Big East and put together some pretty good teams (although they never did much in March Madness).

Big East women's BB dramatically improved over time. UConn was great, which allowed ND, Louisville, and Rutgers to build solid programs.

(03-05-2015 08:40 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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?

The classic case:

Jim Calhoun arrived at UConn in 1986. Prior to that, we were always .500 or below (usually below) in the Big East. He started recruiting by telling the kids:

1) "You'll get to play the best in college BB, like Georgetown and Syracuse".
2) "You'll be on ESPN".

Yes, but as Bragg and i sussed out, seems like for this conference-synergy effect to work, it seems like it will only happen for Power conferences. In 1986, the Big East wasn't just a "power" basketball conference, it was the very best conference, and one that was the darling of the basketball media world too. Calhoun was thus able to make a real credible claim to recruits about the competition they would face at UConn, and the media attention as well.

The AAC situation is far different. In football, we're not only not the best conference, we're not in the P5, and aren't even the best G5 conference. And as far as media, we're an afterthought.

Thus, it's far less likely that a AAC coach will be able to land quality recruits by saying "you'll be playing in the AAC" ... Recruits probably lump the G5 together, just like the media does. And even if a clever AAC coach can convince a recruit that the AAC has more to offer than C-USA, that is hardly going to land the kind of recruit that will make the AAC a significantly better league.

(03-05-2015 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

I don't disagree that a lethargic and unmotivated UCF was outplayed thoroughly but the final score was 34-27 and an onside recovery away from a tie. UCF has always played back close even when we were getting trounced, it's our MO.

(03-05-2015 09:38 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

I don't disagree that a lethargic and unmotivated UCF was outplayed thoroughly but the final score was 34-27 and an onside recovery away from a tie. UCF has always played back close even when we were getting trounced, it's our MO.

Funny, I remember last year lots of UCF fans getting up in arms and taking extreme umbrage at the notion that you upset Baylor in the Fiesta in part because Baylor was disappointed/unmotivated by having to face a no-name AAC opponent in their big BCS bowl game. But i assume you weren't one of those.

(03-05-2015 06:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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:  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.

No question, budget matter significantly. But, if the AAC is raided by the Big 12 for a couple of teams, it's not like we are going to be able to choose between Alabama and USC to replace those teams. If we choose to replace, the teams will come from the G5, and since we are unlikely to be able to lure any MWC teams away, chances are the replacements will have to come from C-USA or the MAC, even if their budgets are low even by AAC standards.

If you look at who we have taken up to now, its almost as if it was decided by budgets. My guess is that would continue to play a role. Frankly, if raided again, the conference would likely not just add 2 and continue on. A raid might make the western school like Houston, Tulsa, Tulane, and SMU consider a switch to the MW. That might make any reconstituted AAC more eastern and more regional than its current layout. Depending on the In that situation and the pieces available, strong basketball-only schools could be a part of a final solution designed to structure a more valuable property. Lots of potential moving parts.

(03-05-2015 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 08:40 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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?

The classic case:

Jim Calhoun arrived at UConn in 1986. Prior to that, we were always .500 or below (usually below) in the Big East. He started recruiting by telling the kids:

1) "You'll get to play the best in college BB, like Georgetown and Syracuse".
2) "You'll be on ESPN".

Yes, but as Bragg and i sussed out, seems like for this conference-synergy effect to work, it seems like it will only happen for Power conferences. In 1986, the Big East wasn't just a "power" basketball conference, it was the very best conference, and one that was the darling of the basketball media world too. Calhoun was thus able to make a real credible claim to recruits about the competition they would face at UConn, and the media attention as well.

The AAC situation is far different. In football, we're not only not the best conference, we're not in the P5, and aren't even the best G5 conference. And as far as media, we're an afterthought.

Thus, it's far less likely that a AAC coach will be able to land quality recruits by saying "you'll be playing in the AAC" ... Recruits probably lump the G5 together, just like the media does. And even if a clever AAC coach can convince a recruit that the AAC has more to offer than C-USA, that is hardly going to land the kind of recruit that will make the AAC a significantly better league.

Well, the recruiting has to be creative. TCU did well in the MWC by going after the kids who were just slightly behind the kids that Texas and A&M went after (the kids with potential that had not developed yet). And they told some of the kids they could start right away and play four years at TCU, or they could spend 2 years on the bench at Texas or A&M.

The AAC has a TV package that shows every game nationally, which is a selling point. And we can play up our academics, which are much better than the other G5's. The AAC has lot going for it. But we're not sitting on a cash cow; we'll have to scratch and claw for everything we get.

As the conference matures, and people become more familiar with us, things will get better. As a marketing major, I know the importance of brand and identity. It's crucial that we become "the best G5". With our lineup of schools, I'm confident we can do that. All of our schools are committed to playing college athletics at the highest level, and that isn't just talk; our schools really mean it.

(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 bet UCF wishes it had a BCS bowl to brag about...

(03-05-2015 10:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

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

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

No question, budget matter significantly. But, if the AAC is raided by the Big 12 for a couple of teams, it's not like we are going to be able to choose between Alabama and USC to replace those teams. If we choose to replace, the teams will come from the G5, and since we are unlikely to be able to lure any MWC teams away, chances are the replacements will have to come from C-USA or the MAC, even if their budgets are low even by AAC standards.

If you look at who we have taken up to now, its almost as if it was decided by budgets. My guess is that would continue to play a role. Frankly, if raided again, the conference would likely not just add 2 and continue on. A raid might make the western school like Houston, Tulsa, Tulane, and SMU consider a switch to the MW. That might make any reconstituted AAC more eastern and more regional than its current layout. Depending on the In that situation and the pieces available, strong basketball-only schools could be a part of a final solution designed to structure a more valuable property. Lots of potential moving parts.

No question, WHO gets raided away will have an impact on where the replacements, if any, come from (tipping the conference east or west) and budget will likely play a big role as well. You don't want to add schools that don't have the same financial commitment to athletics.

(03-05-2015 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign 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 bet UCF wishes it had a BCS bowl to brag about...

I guess he forgot about the Knights...fact is the G5 isn't equal...the AAC and MWC are a cut above the C-USA, MAC & SunBelt in that order. Those two leagues will always get IMO the benefit of the doubt in regards to the Access Slot and both are Multi Bid leagues in regards to the NCAA Men's Tournament which the C-USA, Sunbelt and MAC can't say most years...

(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.

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.

I don't see a whole lot of difference in the two...

Rank Team Conf W-L Percentile
23 SMU AAC 23-6 6.55%
28 San Diego St. MWC 23-7 7.98%
36 Cincinnati AAC 21-9 10.26%
40 Boise St. MWC 23-7 11.40%
56 Connecticut AAC 17-11 15.95%
61 Temple AAC 20-9 17.38%
65 Colorado St. MWC 25-5 18.52%
74 Tulsa AAC 21-8 21.08%
85 Memphis AAC 17-12 24.22%
99 UNLV MWC 16-14 28.21%
114 Utah St. MWC 18-11 32.48%
118 Wyoming MWC 22-8 33.62%
129 New Mexico MWC 14-15 36.75%
191 Fresno St. MWC 15-15 54.42%
202 East Carolina AAC 13-16 57.55%
215 Air Force MWC 13-16 61.25%
228 Houston AAC 11-18 64.96%
229 Tulane AAC 14-15 65.24%
260 Nevada MWC 9-20 74.07%
271 South Florida AAC 9-21 77.21%
278 UCF AAC 12-17 79.20%
348 San Jose St. MWC 2-27 99.15%

(03-05-2015 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign 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 bet UCF wishes it had a BCS bowl to brag about...

Are you referring to NIU?

(03-05-2015 02:02 AM)Savacool Wrote:  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!

And how many "Trash the MAC" threads are on this the AAC Boards?

Sometimes, you bring it on yourselves.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

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

(03-05-2015 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign 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 bet UCF wishes it had a BCS bowl victory to brag about...

Are you referring to NIU?

Now he isn't.

(03-05-2015 02:01 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

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

(03-05-2015 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign 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 bet UCF wishes it had a BCS bowl victory to brag about...

Are you referring to NIU?

Now he isn't.

  uploadfromtaptalk1425581797534.jpg (Size: 23.46 KB / Downloads: 16)

(03-05-2015 01:12 PM)dbackjon 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.

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.

I don't see a whole lot of difference in the two...

Rank Team Conf W-L Percentile
23 SMU AAC 23-6 6.55%
28 San Diego St. MWC 23-7 7.98%
36 Cincinnati AAC 21-9 10.26%
40 Boise St. MWC 23-7 11.40%
56 Connecticut AAC 17-11 15.95%
61 Temple AAC 20-9 17.38%
65 Colorado St. MWC 25-5 18.52%
74 Tulsa AAC 21-8 21.08%
85 Memphis AAC 17-12 24.22%
99 UNLV MWC 16-14 28.21%
114 Utah St. MWC 18-11 32.48%
118 Wyoming MWC 22-8 33.62%
129 New Mexico MWC 14-15 36.75%
191 Fresno St. MWC 15-15 54.42%
202 East Carolina AAC 13-16 57.55%
215 Air Force MWC 13-16 61.25%
228 Houston AAC 11-18 64.96%
229 Tulane AAC 14-15 65.24%
260 Nevada MWC 9-20 74.07%
271 South Florida AAC 9-21 77.21%
278 UCF AAC 12-17 79.20%
348 San Jose St. MWC 2-27 99.15%

Told you---the main difference is budgets--Both are well above CUSA, MAC, and Sunbelt. The AAC is even higher than the MW.

UConn--63.4 million #48
UCF--41.2 million #61
USF-45 million #57
Temple--44 million
Navy---not avail (estimated 37-38 million, similar to Army and Air Force)
Cinci--61.9 million #51
Memphis--46.3 million #56
Houston--42 million #60
Tulsa--couldn't find anything on Tulsa, but they seemed competitive vs many of the same teams while in CUSA. I assume the budget is similar.
ECU--35.8 million #68
SMU---52 million in 2012-2013, likely higher today
Tulane--29.4 million in 2012-2013, likely higher today.

Boise--43.2 million #59
Utah St--23.6 million #103
Fresno--33.7 million #71
San Jose St--25.8 million #98
UNLV--64.5 million #46
New Mexico--44.3 million #58
Air Force--39.4 million #63
Wyoming--29.7 million #75
Colorado St---34.7 million #69
Nevada--26.6 million #93
SDSU--39.2 million #62
Hawaii---37 million #65

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...nCT79I5_WQ

Temple budget figure from here
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...nCT79I5_WQ

SMU and Tulane budget amounts from 2 years ago obtained from here

http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf/201...money.html