(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.

Exactly. This is similar to UC, which played the first football game in Ohio in 1888, then played in what some historians call the first bowl game after the 1896 season. Except for a flash in the 50s, we weren't that good until the 2000s.

Schools like Houston and Navy have more football history than Rutgers, and arguably more than Syracuse or WVU too. I know that some of the schools don't have much history, but many of the new additions have traditionally been considered "major" schools.

(07-10-2013 09:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(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.

Exactly. This is similar to UC, which played the first football game in Ohio in 1888, then played in what some historians call the first bowl game after the 1896 season. Except for a flash in the 50s, we weren't that good until the 2000s.

Schools like Houston and Navy have more football history than Rutgers, and arguably more than Syracuse or WVU too. I know that some of the schools don't have much history, but many of the new additions have traditionally been considered "major" schools.

wvu, syracuse, & pitt are very high on the all time wins list #14 #15 & #20. pitt & cuse are #4 & #6 for most NFL HOFs as well. so clearly these are very strong programs.

(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 **

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the Big East "departed" were no better 2005-12 than the teams that replaced them?

How many of "the departed" had seasons like these over the past decade?

Tulane 2012 (2-10)
Tulane 2011 (2-11)
Memphis 2011 (2-10)
Memphis 2010 (1-11)
Memphis 2009 (2-10)
Tulane 2008 (2-10)
SMU 2008 (1-11)
SMU 2007 (1-11)
Memphis 2006 (2-10)
Temple 2006 (1-11)
Temple 2005 (0-11)
Tulane 2005 (2-9)
Temple 2004 (2-9)
Central Florida 2004 (0-11)
East Carolina 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2003 (1-11)
Temple 2003 (1-11)

(07-10-2013 09:51 PM)Melky Cabrera 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

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 **

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the Big East "departed" were no better 2005-12 than the teams that replaced them?

How many of "the departed" had seasons like these over the past decade?

Tulane 2012 (2-10)
Tulane 2011 (2-11)
Memphis 2011 (2-10)
Memphis 2010 (1-11)
Memphis 2009 (2-10)
Tulane 2008 (2-10)
SMU 2008 (1-11)
SMU 2007 (1-11)
Memphis 2006 (2-10)
Temple 2006 (1-11)
Temple 2005 (0-11)
Tulane 2005 (2-9)
Temple 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2003 (1-11)
Temple 2003 (1-11)

Yeah our 20 year history sucks but last 4 years we would have beat UCONN.

(07-10-2013 09:54 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:51 PM)Melky Cabrera 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

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 **

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the Big East "departed" were no better 2005-12 than the teams that replaced them?

How many of "the departed" had seasons like these over the past decade?

Tulane 2012 (2-10)
Tulane 2011 (2-11)
Memphis 2011 (2-10)
Memphis 2010 (1-11)
Memphis 2009 (2-10)
Tulane 2008 (2-10)
SMU 2008 (1-11)
SMU 2007 (1-11)
Memphis 2006 (2-10)
Temple 2006 (1-11)
Temple 2005 (0-11)
Tulane 2005 (2-9)
Temple 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2003 (1-11)
Temple 2003 (1-11)

Yeah our 20 year history sucks but last 4 years we would have beat UCONN.

Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda.

Yep . . . And every convict on Death Row is innocent.

(07-10-2013 09:58 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:54 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:51 PM)Melky Cabrera 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

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 **

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the Big East "departed" were no better 2005-12 than the teams that replaced them?

How many of "the departed" had seasons like these over the past decade?

Tulane 2012 (2-10)
Tulane 2011 (2-11)
Memphis 2011 (2-10)
Memphis 2010 (1-11)
Memphis 2009 (2-10)
Tulane 2008 (2-10)
SMU 2008 (1-11)
SMU 2007 (1-11)
Memphis 2006 (2-10)
Temple 2006 (1-11)
Temple 2005 (0-11)
Tulane 2005 (2-9)
Temple 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2003 (1-11)
Temple 2003 (1-11)

Yeah our 20 year history sucks but last 4 years we would have beat UCONN.

Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda.

Yep . . . And every convict on Death Row is innocent.

You make me smile

BTW, Pony94, Why would the 2010 Mustangs have beaten UConn's Big East champs in 2010?

For that matter, what makes you think that SMU could have beaten Uconn even in 2009?

(07-10-2013 10:02 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  BTW, Pony94, Why would the 2010 Mustangs have beaten UConn's Big East champs in 2010?

For that matter, what makes you think that SMU could have beaten Uconn even in 2009?

Stick to basketball

(07-10-2013 10:03 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:02 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  BTW, Pony94, Why would the 2010 Mustangs have beaten UConn's Big East champs in 2010?

For that matter, what makes you think that SMU could have beaten Uconn even in 2009?

Stick to basketball

That's your answer???

(07-10-2013 10:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:03 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:02 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  BTW, Pony94, Why would the 2010 Mustangs have beaten UConn's Big East champs in 2010?

For that matter, what makes you think that SMU could have beaten Uconn even in 2009?

Stick to basketball

That's your answer???

Just look at your current roster and recruits versus ours then we will talk

(07-10-2013 09:54 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:51 PM)Melky Cabrera 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

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 **

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the Big East "departed" were no better 2005-12 than the teams that replaced them?

How many of "the departed" had seasons like these over the past decade?

Tulane 2012 (2-10)
Tulane 2011 (2-11)
Memphis 2011 (2-10)
Memphis 2010 (1-11)
Memphis 2009 (2-10)
Tulane 2008 (2-10)
SMU 2008 (1-11)
SMU 2007 (1-11)
Memphis 2006 (2-10)
Temple 2006 (1-11)
Temple 2005 (0-11)
Tulane 2005 (2-9)
Temple 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2003 (1-11)
Temple 2003 (1-11)

Yeah our 20 year history sucks but last 4 years we would have beat UCONN.

I don't think so. In 2009, UConn won the Big East. And last year (the worst season in several years), UConn still won at Louisville and had five players drafted.

(07-10-2013 10:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:54 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:51 PM)Melky Cabrera 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

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 **

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the Big East "departed" were no better 2005-12 than the teams that replaced them?

How many of "the departed" had seasons like these over the past decade?

Tulane 2012 (2-10)
Tulane 2011 (2-11)
Memphis 2011 (2-10)
Memphis 2010 (1-11)
Memphis 2009 (2-10)
Tulane 2008 (2-10)
SMU 2008 (1-11)
SMU 2007 (1-11)
Memphis 2006 (2-10)
Temple 2006 (1-11)
Temple 2005 (0-11)
Tulane 2005 (2-9)
Temple 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2003 (1-11)
Temple 2003 (1-11)

Yeah our 20 year history sucks but last 4 years we would have beat UCONN.

I don't think so. In 2009, UConn won the Big East. And last year (the worst season in several years), UConn still won at Louisville and had five players drafted.

How many fans made it to the bowl game?

(07-10-2013 10:36 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:54 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:51 PM)Melky Cabrera 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

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 **

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the Big East "departed" were no better 2005-12 than the teams that replaced them?

How many of "the departed" had seasons like these over the past decade?

Tulane 2012 (2-10)
Tulane 2011 (2-11)
Memphis 2011 (2-10)
Memphis 2010 (1-11)
Memphis 2009 (2-10)
Tulane 2008 (2-10)
SMU 2008 (1-11)
SMU 2007 (1-11)
Memphis 2006 (2-10)
Temple 2006 (1-11)
Temple 2005 (0-11)
Tulane 2005 (2-9)
Temple 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2003 (1-11)
Temple 2003 (1-11)

Yeah our 20 year history sucks but last 4 years we would have beat UCONN.

I don't think so. In 2009, UConn won the Big East. And last year (the worst season in several years), UConn still won at Louisville and had five players drafted.

How many fans made it to the bowl game?

It was the same number that Oklahoma brought.

(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

Yes it is, it's much different.

The AAC line-up shown above represents the very last group of upwardly mobile CUSA schools, or maybe slightly upwardly-sideways mobile schools. I mean that's clearly a legacy CUSA league with a new paint job.

Most of those schools are trying real hard to justify a seat at the table, but they'll never make enough headway in their own states/regions to make the needle move. Too much SEC, B1G Ten, Big XII, ACC competition and tradition for anyone to notice "The American".

The MWC has an easier road and less competition.

(07-10-2013 11:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  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

+1

Interesting that so many of you are willing to place Louisville on a level with Memphis & Tulane based on a 3-year lull, even though just before and just after that period, the Cards won BCS bowls. Even the best of programs have down periods due to bad coaching hires. The fact that we were back to winning a BCS bowl so quickly says more for the program than the Kragthorpe era said against it.

During the period mentioned by the OP, Louisville is WVU's equal, in that we won the same number of BCS bowls. Cincinnati may have gone to 2 BCS bowls, but they won neither of them. To say "Other than WVU, those BE teams haven't performed any better over the last 6 years than the AAC additions" is beyond ludicrous.

I have no desire to diss Cincy or any other school in The American, but Cincy fans should keep this kind of silliness to their own board or that of their conference.

(07-10-2013 10:08 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:03 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:02 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  BTW, Pony94, Why would the 2010 Mustangs have beaten UConn's Big East champs in 2010?

For that matter, what makes you think that SMU could have beaten Uconn even in 2009?

Stick to basketball

That's your answer???

Just look at your current roster and recruits versus ours then we will talk

I looked. Let's talk.

(07-10-2013 10:36 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 10:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:54 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:51 PM)Melky Cabrera 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

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 **

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that the Big East "departed" were no better 2005-12 than the teams that replaced them?

How many of "the departed" had seasons like these over the past decade?

Tulane 2012 (2-10)
Tulane 2011 (2-11)
Memphis 2011 (2-10)
Memphis 2010 (1-11)
Memphis 2009 (2-10)
Tulane 2008 (2-10)
SMU 2008 (1-11)
SMU 2007 (1-11)
Memphis 2006 (2-10)
Temple 2006 (1-11)
Temple 2005 (0-11)
Tulane 2005 (2-9)
Temple 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2004 (2-9)
East Carolina 2003 (1-11)
Temple 2003 (1-11)

Yeah our 20 year history sucks but last 4 years we would have beat UCONN.

I don't think so. In 2009, UConn won the Big East. And last year (the worst season in several years), UConn still won at Louisville and had five players drafted.

How many fans made it to the bowl game?

What in the world does that have to do with the relative merits of the two teams???

Is the competition about who wins the game or who sells more tickets? I'll tel you this, you may sell more tickets but we have better tailgates.

(07-10-2013 11:36 PM)Blackhawk-eye 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

Yes it is, it's much different.

The AAC line-up shown above represents the very last group of upwardly mobile CUSA schools, or maybe slightly upwardly-sideways mobile schools. I mean that's clearly a legacy CUSA league with a new paint job.

Most of those schools are trying real hard to justify a seat at the table, but they'll never make enough headway in their own states/regions to make the needle move. Too much SEC, B1G Ten, Big XII, ACC competition and tradition for anyone to notice "The American".

The MWC has an easier road and less competition.

I'm with you up until that last sentence.

Having lost the states of Colorado and Utah, what states does the Mountain West control without any serious competition?

Nevada (2.8 million)
New Mexico (2.1 million)
Idaho (1.6 million)
Hawaii (1.4 million)
Wyoming (0.6 million)

That's a group of states with a population of 8.5 million.

The AAC controls only the state of Connecticut (3.6 million) with no competition, but that leaves a difference of only 4.9 million, or the combined populations of Nevada and New Mexico. That's a serious advantage? Does that really make the Mountain West more appealing to the networks?

Basically the Mountain West has the same problem as the AAC but without the big metro markets to bring to the networks.

(07-11-2013 12:28 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 11:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  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

+1

what does it say when 2 of those 4 teams were undefeated and ranked until they lost against MAC teams?

the BE gave the AQ conferences a majority vote over the non-AQs, 6-5. Once the AQs had successfully manipulated the BCS to their advantage and didn't need BE's vote anymore they raided it and left the scraps for the non-AQs. The BE was considered the only hope for non-AQs to become AQ because it was inferior to the rest. There's a reason the new AAC teams weren't picked up by AQ conferences before.