(07-21-2017 02:13 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Your record is what it is.

Yes it is.

Over the last two years, P6 American beat 19 "Power 5" teams by itself. The G4 beat 19 "P5" teams combined (MAC 8, CUSA 4, MWC 6, Sun Belt 1).

Over the last two years, P6 American is 21-10 against G4 teams, including regular season and bowl games. That's 68%.

Over the last two years, the average American team was ranked 68.82 in the Massey Composite poll. Compare MWC at 80.85, MAC at 85.85, Sun Belt at 90.37 and CUSA at 92.57. (For comparison, the Big 10, ACC and Big 12 are all in the 48-49 range).

Case closed.

Will 2020 please get here so the AAC can be unhappy with their next tv contract. I have a feeling no matter what it is, AAC will complain. But take pride in being thr tallest midget. Routing for your G5 brethren to make The G5 slot this year, Go App!

(07-21-2017 02:13 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 12:03 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:58 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  excuses

Ok

You act as if no other conferences face coaching changes affecting Bowls. There have been 25 coaching changes in the 130 school FBS. If you are a successful G5 coach you are likely to get nabbed right before your Bowl by a P5 school that failed to make a prestigious Bowl. Every G5 conference faces such things. That the AAC faced that last year is proof they are a G5 conference.

Your record is what it is.

As for the P5 schools playing G5, there is always a question of motivation. The "Access" Bowl usually has a highly motivated G5 school and a P5 school that doesn't want to be there. You hoped for USC or Penn State and instead you get Western Michigan or South Florida. To the P5 school it feel like punishment, "you are a NY6 program ... but not one of the top 10 schools ... you're the 11th." Once the game starts they will give it a real effort, but in the practices leading up, a lot of times it's going through the motions I'm sure.

When you get down to the 6-6 P5 schools, it is strictly an early spring practice game. A lot of NFL bound players develop reasons not to suit up. So I get why Aresco doesn't want these games.

LOL... Cool story... I really like how you tell it... So inspiring

Oh, some furher non distinction of the AAC and other G5 conferences via the NFL Draft:

Conf: players drafteed
MAC: 11
AAC: 11
CUSA: 8
MWC: 8
SBC: 6
FCS: 15 (2 from non-scholarship Pioneer League; Villanova had the most with 2)
Others: 5 (mostly D-II, but really random)

MWC was down a bit from the prior two ears, they usually have the most (benefit of being the only Western FBS option for CA kids who don't get picked up by a P12 school), But except for the SBC, who are always the bottom, there is not a spit of difference in the pre-NFL talent on the other 4 G5 conferences and has not been for the last few years.

Only 2 G5 players (Corey Davis, WMU; Hassan Reddick, Temple) were selected in the 1st round (only 1 the year before) and only 3 in the 2nd round (same as the year before). Just over 90% of the 1st round players are P5, 85% of 2nd round are typically P5. The NFL consistently ranks the G5 schools as having only 25% of the number of potential players as the P5, and around 7-8% of the "high" value 1st or 2nd round picks. The AAC does not separate itself from the MAC, CUSA or MWC in this respect.

There simply isn't a metric that shows any separation between the American and the other G5 conferences, except in bloviating.

(07-21-2017 10:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Oh, some furher non distinction of the AAC and other G5 conferences via the NFL Draft:

Conf: players drafteed
MAC: 11
AAC: 11
CUSA: 8
MWC: 8
SBC: 6
FCS: 15 (2 from non-scholarship Pioneer League; Villanova had the most with 2)
Others: 5 (mostly D-II, but really random)

MWC was down a bit from the prior two ears, they usually have the most (benefit of being the only Western FBS option for CA kids who don't get picked up by a P12 school), But except for the SBC, who are always the bottom, there is not a spit of difference in the pre-NFL talent on the other 4 G5 conferences and has not been for the last few years.

Only 2 G5 players (Corey Davis, WMU; Hassan Reddick, Temple) were selected in the 1st round (only 1 the year before) and only 3 in the 2nd round (same as the year before). Just over 90% of the 1st round players are P5, 85% of 2nd round are typically P5. The NFL consistently ranks the G5 schools as having only 25% of the number of potential players as the P5, and around 7-8% of the "high" value 1st or 2nd round picks. The AAC does not separate itself from the MAC, CUSA or MWC in this respect.

There simply isn't a metric that shows any separation between the American and the other G5 conferences, except in bloviating.

LOL... You're so freaking hilarious... You must not watch FOOTBALL much I take it... That's alright, lots of others don't either.

But please do carry on... ... ...

(07-21-2017 09:07 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:13 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Your record is what it is.

Yes it is.

Over the last two years, P6 American beat 19 "Power 5" teams by itself. The G4 beat 19 "P5" teams combined (MAC 8, CUSA 4, MWC 6, Sun Belt 1).

Over the last two years, P6 American is 21-10 against G4 teams, including regular season and bowl games. That's 68%.

Over the last two years, the average American team was ranked 68.82 in the Massey Composite poll. Compare MWC at 80.85, MAC at 85.85, Sun Belt at 90.37 and CUSA at 92.57. (For comparison, the Big 10, ACC and Big 12 are all in the 48-49 range).

Case closed.

The AAC's problem has been bowl games. The regular season success just hasn't translated to the post-season. The AAC has only gotten the NY6 bid, which garners the lion's share of attention for the G5 during bowl season, once in three years. And, the AAC has had a losing bowl record each of its three seasons as well.

Unfortunately, bowls get remembered more than wins in September and October, which the AAC has done very well in.

(07-21-2017 09:43 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Will 2020 please get here so the AAC can be unhappy with their next tv contract. I have a feeling no matter what it is, AAC will complain. But take pride in being thr tallest midget. Routing for your G5 brethren to make The G5 slot this year, Go App!

We wont get P5 money so yes we will not be happy. If we come in at 3.5 mil the top schools will take a hit so they will be real unhappy, If AAC gets 5 to 7 most will neither be happy or unhappy. anything north of 7 and most would be happy with the deal, would they prefer jumping to P5, yes. but we clearly would separate from G4.

(07-22-2017 07:59 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 09:43 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Will 2020 please get here so the AAC can be unhappy with their next tv contract. I have a feeling no matter what it is, AAC will complain. But take pride in being thr tallest midget. Routing for your G5 brethren to make The G5 slot this year, Go App!

We wont get P5 money so yes we will not be happy. If we come in at 3.5 mil the top schools will take a hit so they will be real unhappy, If AAC gets 5 to 7 most will neither be happy or unhappy. anything north of 7 and most would be happy with the deal, would they prefer jumping to P5, yes. but we clearly would separate from G4.

I agree with everything you say here save one thing - nobody in the AAC will be happy until they move to the P5. Whether we are getting $8m or $3m next deal, it will just be different levels of unhappiness.

(07-21-2017 11:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC's problem has been bowl games. The regular season success just hasn't translated to the post-season.

It's translated in the two bowl games that mattered.

See UCF over Baylor in the Fiesta. Houston over Florida State in the Peach.

(07-22-2017 09:23 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 11:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC's problem has been bowl games. The regular season success just hasn't translated to the post-season.

It's translated in the two bowl games that mattered.

See UCF over Baylor in the Fiesta. Houston over Florida State in the Peach.

THIS. It's also worth noting the loss of coaches has been a significant factor in the many of the lost bowl games. Id love to see a breakdown of our winning percentages in bowl games where the coaching situation was stable vs a poached coach.

(07-22-2017 09:23 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 11:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC's problem has been bowl games. The regular season success just hasn't translated to the post-season.

It's translated in the two bowl games that mattered.

See UCF over Baylor in the Fiesta. Houston over Florida State in the Peach.

UCF over Baylor doesn't count, because the AAC was AQ at the time.

Houston > FSU was surely a big win, but the bigger story for us w/regards to the NY6 is that we've only gotten the bid one year out of three so far.

That said, our bowl record has been lousy, no two ways about it, and bowls have never mattered more in terms of conference stature.

(07-22-2017 09:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 09:23 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 11:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC's problem has been bowl games. The regular season success just hasn't translated to the post-season.

It's translated in the two bowl games that mattered.

See UCF over Baylor in the Fiesta. Houston over Florida State in the Peach.

THIS. It's also worth noting the loss of coaches has been a significant factor in the many of the lost bowl games. Id love to see a breakdown of our winning percentages in bowl games where the coaching situation was stable vs a poached coach.

I'm not sure how much that matters. E.g., USF lost Taggart last year and we won our bowl game anyway. Also, you'd have to look at the competition as well. Coaches of all levels - head, DCs, OCs, etc. are constantly shifting everywhere not just in the AAC, and it often happens around the time of the bowls.

(07-22-2017 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  UCF over Baylor in 2013 doesn't count, because the AAC was AQ at the time.

Distinction without a difference.

Had the 2014 rules been in effect in 2013, UCF would have been the G5 rep.

They were rated higher in the final BCS poll than any other team in the American, MWC, MAC, CUSA or Sun Belt.

(07-22-2017 01:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  UCF over Baylor in 2013 doesn't count, because the AAC was AQ at the time.

Distinction without a difference.

Had the 2014 rules been in effect in 2013, UCF would have been the G5 rep.

They were rated higher in the final BCS poll than any other team in the American, MWC, MAC, CUSA or Sun Belt.

Get out of here with those hogwash facts.........some just don't care

(07-22-2017 01:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  UCF over Baylor in 2013 doesn't count, because the AAC was AQ at the time.

Distinction without a difference.

Had the 2014 rules been in effect in 2013, UCF would have been the G5 rep.

They were rated higher in the final BCS poll than any other team in the American, MWC, MAC, CUSA or Sun Belt.

That's true, but, (a) the fact remains that in 2013, the AAC was an AQ conference, not a G5 conference, and (b) if we are going to speculate, the relevant rules wouldn't be the 2014 rules, but, because the year in question is 2013, rather the 2013 rules that were in effect for other non-AQ conferences.

And by the 2013 rules, UCF wouldn't have even played in the Fiesta Bowl, because if non-AQ they would not have qualified under the BCS rules. So it's not trivial at all that the AAC was AQ that year, as that's the only way UCF got to play in the BCS bowl game.

Can't have it both ways.

Can't say UCF's win doesn't count because AAC had an autobid, and then say UCF didn't deserve a Fiesta bid because it would not have qualified if the AAC did not have an autobid.

In fact, I take issue with your entire argument.

Clearly UCF deserved the Fiesta bid. Anyone who watched that game would agree.

Clearly, no other G5 team deserved it more, as your first argument seemed to imply. UCF was rated higher than any of them.

And clearly that game matters in any argument about the strength of the American. That win is a testament to what our champions can accomplish.

You keep digging yourself holes. Inconsistent holes at that.

(07-22-2017 02:14 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Can't have it both ways.

Can't say UCF's win doesn't count because AAC had an autobid, and then say UCF didn't deserve a Fiesta bid because it would not have qualified if the AAC did not have an autobid.

I haven't tried to have it both ways. I never said UCF didn't deserve to play that Fiesta Bowl. By the rules in place that year, of course they did. I just said UCF's win doesn't count, because the AAC had an autobid. That's obvious, because the whole issue here is about the status of the AAC and its chances to improve itself given the fact that it is *not* a Power/AQ conference. If it was, those issues are moot, and in 2013, it was.

Others then tried to come in with woulda-coulda about if the AAC wasn't AQ that year, so I just pointed out that if the AAC wasn't AQ, UCF wouldn't have gotten to play the game.

(07-22-2017 02:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 02:14 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Can't have it both ways.

Can't say UCF's win doesn't count because AAC had an autobid, and then say UCF didn't deserve a Fiesta bid because it would not have qualified if the AAC did not have an autobid.

I haven't tried to have it both ways. I never said UCF didn't deserve to play that Fiesta Bowl. By the rules in place that year, of course they did. I just said UCF's win doesn't count, because the AAC had an autobid. That's obvious, because the whole issue here is about the status of the AAC and its chances to improve itself given the fact that it is *not* a Power/AQ conference. If it was, those issues are moot, and in 2013, it was.

Others then tried to come in with woulda-coulda about if the AAC wasn't AQ that year, so I just pointed out that if the AAC wasn't AQ, UCF wouldn't have gotten to play the game.

Quo,
I agree. Most AAC fans and Aresco don't want to distinquish between BCS era and CFP era. AAC still had Louisville and Rutgers, CFP started a new era. I am sorry, it be like the ACC saying it has always been a great conference in football with it's early success in the CFP. During the BCS, they BE and ACC fought to see who could be the worse BCS conference with the ACC usually winning this battle. AAC has been the best G5 so far in the CFP era much as the ACC has been in the top 3 P5. Will it last, I think we have to more wait two - three years more to get an accurate assesment. When the bowls and G5 TV contracts come up for renewal.

(07-22-2017 02:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 01:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  UCF over Baylor in 2013 doesn't count, because the AAC was AQ at the time.

Distinction without a difference.

Had the 2014 rules been in effect in 2013, UCF would have been the G5 rep.

They were rated higher in the final BCS poll than any other team in the American, MWC, MAC, CUSA or Sun Belt.

That's true, but, (a) the fact remains that in 2013, the AAC was an AQ conference, not a G5 conference, and (b) if we are going to speculate, the relevant rules wouldn't be the 2014 rules, but, because the year in question is 2013, rather the 2013 rules that were in effect for other non-AQ conferences.

And by the 2013 rules, UCF wouldn't have even played in the Fiesta Bowl, because if non-AQ they would not have qualified under the BCS rules. So it's not trivial at all that the AAC was AQ that year, as that's the only way UCF got to play in the BCS bowl game.

It was an "AQ" conference that had already been defrocked. It was no more considered a power conference in 2013 than it is now. Otherwise, the AAC is the only conference where nearly all its members are former member of a power conference. That makes the AAC completely different from any other G5. If you want to use that "AQ" to undermine the AAC P6 narrative, that's fine---just remember that argument plays both ways.

(07-22-2017 03:21 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Quo,
I agree. Most AAC fans and Aresco don't want to distinquish between BCS era and CFP era.

Well, that's because it's a lot more relevant to them that the Big East Football Conference ended in 2012-13 and the AAC Era began in 2013-14. In that context, the fact that the BCS era overlapped the AAC era by a year is pretty trivial. Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia had left, Temple, Memphis, UCF, Houston and SMU had arrived.

Quote:AAC still had Louisville and Rutgers,

Nobody cares. Yes Louisville had a good year, but I think 95% of college football fans have to check wikipedia to remember that they were a top 25 team that year. (I did, but I'm not a big college football fan.)

The bottom line is, there has been an AAC for 4 years. They've gone to 2 major bowl games and won both. But they've sent their champ to minor bowls vs who cares 2 years out of 4.

You can read that as missing the Access Bowl 2 years out of 3 if you want to. Or you can read that as 2 out of 4. I think either one is reasonable, but I'd incline to 2 out of 4.

Although you could look at the Access Bowl scoreboard so far as Boise State 1, AAC 1, Everybody Else 1. Which actually isn't that surprising.