The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

Other than WVU, those BE teams haven't performed any better over the last 6 years than the AAC additions. Also, their fanbases are almost the same size. I'm not saying that they're equal (they're not). I'm saying that the BE was better, but not by a wide margin.

The Answer:
The Big East was the nation's premier basketball league. This meant they HAD to get coverage, such as a blog on ESPN and dedicated beat writers from the AP.

The public subconsciously "bought" that they were a major conference in football because no "mid-major" conference could possibly have 9 teams ranked at the same time in basketball.


The Solution:
I think we need to get back to this strategy. The C-7 left us, but we still need partners like them. I think that we should immediately add SLU, Dayton, Wichita, and VCU. This doesn't make up for losing the C-7, but a conference with 8 powerhouse teams, plus rising stars like UCF, USF, and Houston is unquestionably a major basketball conference.

IF this expanded AAC performs as expected on the field and on the court (a big if), the public could, again, subconsciously "buy" that we are a major football conference. It's a tougher path than before, but it is achievable.

**Edited because I forgot SMU. I'm an idiot **

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

Other than WVU, those BE teams haven't performed any better over the last 6 years than the AAC additions. Also, their fanbases are almost the same size. I'm not saying that they're equal (they're not). I'm saying that the BE was better, but not by a wide margin.

The Answer:
The Big East was the nation's premier basketball league. This meant they HAD to get coverage, such as a blog on ESPN and dedicated beat writers from the AP.

The public subconsciously "bought" that they were a major conference in football because no "mid-major" conference could possibly have 9 teams ranked at the same time in basketball.


The Solution:
I think we need to get back to this strategy. The C-7 left us, but we still need partners like them. I think that we should immediately add SLU, Dayton, Wichita, and VCU. This doesn't make up for losing the C-7, but a conference with 8 powerhouse teams, plus rising stars like UCF, USF, and Houston is unquestionably a major basketball conference.

IF this expanded AAC performs as expected on the field and on the court (a big if), the public could, again, subconsciously "buy" that we are a major football conference. It's a tougher path than before, but it is achievable.

You forgot SMU you jerk :(

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

Other than WVU, those BE teams haven't performed any better over the last 6 years than the AAC additions. Also, their fanbases are almost the same size. I'm not saying that they're equal (they're not). I'm saying that the BE was better, but not by a wide margin.

The Answer:
The Big East was the nation's premier basketball league. This meant they HAD to get coverage, such as a blog on ESPN and dedicated beat writers from the AP.

The public subconsciously "bought" that they were a major conference in football because no "mid-major" conference could possibly have 9 teams ranked at the same time in basketball.


The Solution:
I think we need to get back to this strategy. The C-7 left us, but we still need partners like them. I think that we should immediately add SLU, Dayton, Wichita, and VCU. This doesn't make up for losing the C-7, but a conference with 8 powerhouse teams, plus rising stars like UCF, USF, and Houston is unquestionably a major basketball conference.

IF this expanded AAC performs as expected on the field and on the court (a big if), the public could, again, subconsciously "buy" that we are a major football conference. It's a tougher path than before, but it is achievable.

I said this after the 1st ACC raid. The Big East needed to regularly have 3 schools ranked, 2 of which needed to be normally the same schools. And 1 needed to be in top 10. Also, Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers needed to quit being so terrible and UConn and USF needed to prove they belonged in FBS. You need teams at the top to get noticed. And you can't have too much deadweight at the bottom.

They managed to do that. Rutgers got respectable. Pitt got respectable. UConn became respectable and USF stayed respectable in a higher level league. Syracuse did manage to finally become competitive again. Meanwhile Louisville and WVU managed to get ranked for several years with other schools (Cincinnati in particular) filling in the top 25. Then UL tanked and the BE had a hard time getting more than 2 schools ranked.

Now the conference lost UL and WVU. It lost its two members who had MNCs, even if they are well in the past-SU and Pitt. And its added Temple and Tulane who have been deadweight. 3 of the schools it is relying on (UConn, USF, UCF) didn't even play I-A football 20 years ago.

Basketball helped elevate the profile and might do it again. But it will still take the same formula of ranked teams in football and the elimination of deadweight.

Only one non-FB member would make sense, VCU. A pretty good argument could be made for WSU to be a travel partner with Tulsa though. Dayton & SLU bring very little, especially Dayton.

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

I don't agree that there is "not THAT much difference". You lost 4 programs that have always been considered in the Have's group plus Louisville and replaced them with 8 members who have always been Have nots plus Temple who was kicked out of the haves. WVU and Louisville have won 5 BCS bowls in the last 10 years, Pitt and Cuse are the best all time programs out of the group with the better USNWR rankings, better facilities and most importantly better TV ratings. Rutgers you're better off having lost. I'll give you that one.

If you're saying the on field performance is not that different, I remind you of the 5 BCS bowls won. No one in the new group matches that but most importantly it's the unmeasurables that add up to the most important measurable : TV ratings. These are not equal conferences and the recent TV contracts prove that.

(07-10-2013 09:28 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

I don't agree that there is "not THAT much difference". You lost 4 programs that have always been considered in the Have's group plus Louisville and replaced them with 8 members who have always been Have nots plus Temple who was kicked out of the haves. WVU and Louisville have won 5 BCS bowls in the last 10 years, Pitt and Cuse are the best all time programs out of the group with the better USNWR rankings, better facilities and most importantly better TV ratings. Rutgers you're better off having lost. I'll give you that one.

If you're saying the on field performance is not that different, I remind you of the 5 BCS bowls won. No one in the new group matches that but most importantly it's the unmeasurables that add up to the most important measurable : TV ratings. These are not equal conferences and the recent TV contracts prove that.

Actually, former SWC schools Houston and SMU have not always been "have nots". Tulane was also a former SEC school. I suppose the other additions have not been in a major conference before.

(07-10-2013 09:28 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

I don't agree that there is "not THAT much difference". You lost 4 programs that have always been considered in the Have's group plus Louisville and replaced them with 8 members who have always been Have nots plus Temple who was kicked out of the haves. WVU and Louisville have won 5 BCS bowls in the last 10 years, Pitt and Cuse are the best all time programs out of the group with the better USNWR rankings, better facilities and most importantly better TV ratings. Rutgers you're better off having lost. I'll give you that one.

If you're saying the on field performance is not that different, I remind you of the 5 BCS bowls won. No one in the new group matches that but most importantly it's the unmeasurables that add up to the most important measurable : TV ratings. These are not equal conferences and the recent TV contracts prove that.

Another Rutgers bash, big surprise. Your bashes would make more sense if it were 2003 not 2013. You act like we're continuing to have 4 wins or less a season.

(07-10-2013 09:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:28 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

I don't agree that there is "not THAT much difference". You lost 4 programs that have always been considered in the Have's group plus Louisville and replaced them with 8 members who have always been Have nots plus Temple who was kicked out of the haves. WVU and Louisville have won 5 BCS bowls in the last 10 years, Pitt and Cuse are the best all time programs out of the group with the better USNWR rankings, better facilities and most importantly better TV ratings. Rutgers you're better off having lost. I'll give you that one.

If you're saying the on field performance is not that different, I remind you of the 5 BCS bowls won. No one in the new group matches that but most importantly it's the unmeasurables that add up to the most important measurable : TV ratings. These are not equal conferences and the recent TV contracts prove that.

Actually, former SWC schools Houston and SMU have not always been "have nots". Tulane was also a former SEC school. I suppose the other additions have not been in a major conference before.

Houston was one of the 3 "Class A" members in the AAC, without which, the TV contract could be voided (UH, UConn, Cincinnati). That also points out how the rest of the schools ranked. They weren't important enough to guarantee the contract if even 1 of those 3 left.

(07-10-2013 09:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  Houston was one of the 3 "Class A" members in the AAC, without which, the TV contract could be voided (UH, UConn, Cincinnati). That also points out how the rest of the schools ranked. They weren't important enough to guarantee the contract if even 1 of those 3 left.

I thought Temple was one too.

pitt, cuse, & rutgers all have significant football history, thats the difference between those schools and the new big east schools.

your logic on basing the strength of a program on the last 6 years dictates that wisconsin > michigan

I'm sorry but the BE '05-'11 was MUCH stronger than the AAC in FB.

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

Other than WVU, those BE teams haven't performed any better over the last 6 years than the AAC additions. Also, their fanbases are almost the same size. I'm not saying that they're equal (they're not). I'm saying that the BE was better, but not by a wide margin.

The Answer:
The Big East was the nation's premier basketball league. This meant they HAD to get coverage, such as a blog on ESPN and dedicated beat writers from the AP.

The public subconsciously "bought" that they were a major conference in football because no "mid-major" conference could possibly have 9 teams ranked at the same time in basketball.


The Solution:
I think we need to get back to this strategy. The C-7 left us, but we still need partners like them. I think that we should immediately add SLU, Dayton, Wichita, and VCU. This doesn't make up for losing the C-7, but a conference with 8 powerhouse teams, plus rising stars like UCF, USF, and Houston is unquestionably a major basketball conference.

IF this expanded AAC performs as expected on the field and on the court (a big if), the public could, again, subconsciously "buy" that we are a major football conference. It's a tougher path than before, but it is achievable.

**Edited because I forgot SMU. I'm an idiot **

Football isn't that much different? Are you serious? You list Tulane, Memphis, SMU and Temple as comparable football programs to the likes of WVU, Pitt, Cuse, Louisville, Rutgers?.....LOL. Hell Tulane cant get 500 people to there games. Temple is historically known as one of the worst football programs of all time and has trouble with fan support. Memphis? Great in basketball I'll give you that but football?. SMU? Its own players say that they would rather play on the road instead of the home crowd that shows up.

Wow. Just Wow.

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

Answer is that the "big boys" and the media probably wanted to take BCS status away from the Big East as soon as Miami/VT left, but didn't have an opportunity they felt comfortable with until the BCS was replaced by the CFP.

The AAC perception that you are seeing now is only slightly less than what the big boys and media really thought about post-Miami/VT Big East football. Just recall all the complaints from Big East fans about how Big East football was disrespected by the media. It was disrespected, even though the BE held onto the BCS label.

Now, can you prove them wrong if you consistently have excellent teams that win major bowl games? Sure you can. Like WVU did while they were still in the BE, and Louisville this past season, you have to actually go out and win the big games and then you can point to the evidence.

The AAC perception that you are seeing now is only slightly less than what the big boys and media really thought about post-Miami/VT Big East football. Just recall all the complaints from Big East fans about how Big East football was disrespected by the media. It was disrespected, even though the BE held onto the BCS label.

funny thing is......

since 2005 the BE has a 5-4 BCS record, vs acc in BCS games their record is 2-1

louisville stomped florida, but louisville finished in a 4 way tie for first place in the big east.....what does that say?

the big east was always underrated and i think that will show when LV pitt rutgers, & cuse play in their new conferences

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

The football is not THAT much different:
BE: WVU, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
AAC: ECU, Navy, UCF, Houston, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane

Other than WVU, those BE teams haven't performed any better over the last 6 years than the AAC additions. Also, their fanbases are almost the same size. I'm not saying that they're equal (they're not). I'm saying that the BE was better, but not by a wide margin.

In terms of football:

Teams the BigEast Lost
WestVirginia: 93, 03*, 04*, 05, 07*, 10*, 11*
Syracuse: 96*, 97, 98, 04*, 12*
Pitt: 04*, 10*
L'ville: 06, 11*, 12*
Rutgers: 12*

Teams the AAU retained:
UConn: 07*, 10*,
Cincinnati: 08, 09, 11*, 12*
USF:

* = shared conference title

Even if you ignore the pre-BigEast 2.0 (when L'ville, Cincinnati, UConn and USF started in the BigEast), you have to admit most of the BigEast FB talent will not be in the AAC after this one transition season. And I say that admitting that Cincinnati (because I once lived there and attended a lot of their FB games) was, by far, my favorite program that ever played BigEast FB.

On top of that - the accomplishments are not that comparable (and this is even more significant):
The replacements have only non-BCS credentials/titles/bowl wins - and very few wins vs the BCS (even against the old BigEast) to bring in. Going (7-1, 9-3) in C-USA and (0-2) vs the BCS does not compare well to 6-1 in the old BigEast. It just doesn't. I wish the best for Cincinnati (which means I hope they get a conference up-grade), but it will be a major disappointment for their fans if they do not dominate (perhaps on-par with ECU - who I think is a very good program) this conference in FB after this season.

(07-10-2013 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 08:42 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big East was considered a major conference. The AAC is not. Why not?

Answer is that the "big boys" and the media probably wanted to take BCS status away from the Big East as soon as Miami/VT left, but didn't have an opportunity they felt comfortable with until the BCS was replaced by the CFP.

The AAC perception that you are seeing now is only slightly less than what the big boys and media really thought about post-Miami/VT Big East football. Just recall all the complaints from Big East fans about how Big East football was disrespected by the media. It was disrespected, even though the BE held onto the BCS label.

Now, can you prove them wrong if you consistently have excellent teams that win major bowl games? Sure you can. Like WVU did while they were still in the BE, and Louisville this past season, you have to actually go out and win the big games and then you can point to the evidence.

I don't think it was that they wanted to boot those teams from the BCS, it's that they wanted their spot in the bowl games. Thats why every team except for Temple has been invited to another BCS conference. From 1998 only Temple lost BCS status while TCU, Utah and Louisville gained BCS status. Uconn, Cincy and UConn were never original BCS members. Also when all is said and done I see 2-6 more teams getting upgraded. Cincy has a good shot of getting an invite whenever the Big XII wants to help extend a helping hand to WVU and give them some closer partners. If i'm UNLV i'm pushing hard for that new FB stadium and putting everything I could into my FB program. Same goes for SD St and Hawaii.

(07-10-2013 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  pitt, cuse, & rutgers all have significant football history, thats the difference between those schools and the new big east schools.

your logic on basing the strength of a program on the last 6 years dictates that wisconsin > michigan

We started the sport in 1869 and after that it was largely mediocre except for a few bright spots between the late 50s and mid 70s and then largely downhill until 2001. Significant in length though and we're a big school with lots of alumni in a populous state. So fair enough.

(07-10-2013 02:53 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  pitt, cuse, & rutgers all have significant football history, thats the difference between those schools and the new big east schools.

your logic on basing the strength of a program on the last 6 years dictates that wisconsin > michigan

We started the sport in 1869 and after that it was largely mediocre except for a few bright spots between the late 50s and mid 70s and then largely downhill until 2001. Significant in length though and we're a big school with lots of alumni in a populous state. So fair enough.

they may not be in the same league as cuse/pitt in terms of history, but in terms of fanbase/resources they are and thats why i included them on my mini list

(07-10-2013 02:53 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  pitt, cuse, & rutgers all have significant football history, thats the difference between those schools and the new big east schools.

your logic on basing the strength of a program on the last 6 years dictates that wisconsin > michigan

We started the sport in 1869 and after that it was largely mediocre except for a few bright spots between the late 50s and mid 70s and then largely downhill until 2001. Significant in length though and we're a big school with lots of alumni in a populous state. So fair enough.

Brista did I hear it right that Rutgers is now 3rd in student body size after the merger with something like 65K students? I know they are now top 25 research institution.

(07-10-2013 11:17 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Football isn't that much different? Are you serious? You list Tulane, Memphis, SMU and Temple as comparable football programs to the likes of WVU, Pitt, Cuse, Louisville, Rutgers?.....LOL. Hell Tulane cant get 500 people to there games. Temple is historically known as one of the worst football programs of all time and has trouble with fan support. Memphis? Great in basketball I'll give you that but football?. SMU? Its own players say that they would rather play on the road instead of the home crowd that shows up.

Wow. Just Wow.

Actually, I was saying that Houston, Navy, ECU, and UCF are comparable football programs to those. I'm well aware that there's some deadweight there.