this is not a diss to CUSA, its just common sense. would fans come out to see a CUSA team or a PAC10 team? it helps fill the stands up, the Hawaii bowl has had an exciting game every year so far. this year it had to end after a simple routine PAT was missed, Hawaii fans know exactly how that feels..

I find it hilarious that some of you are touting conference "superiority" after Nevada won off a missed PAT.

The Knight Time Wrote:I find it hilarious that some of you are touting conference "superiority" after Nevada won off a missed PAT.

Actually if you were paying attention the perception is based on your conference's entire body of work which was marginal at best. Tulsa, an after thought in the WAC, wins your conference and you're all basically .500 teams.

CUSA is over hyped and the WAC is under appreciated. I would expect that would cause the WAC fans to revel in showing you up, one point win or not.

Roughrider Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:I find it hilarious that some of you are touting conference "superiority" after Nevada won off a missed PAT.

Actually if you were paying attention the perception is based on your conference's entire body of work which was marginal at best. Tulsa, an after thought in the WAC, wins your conference and you're all basically .500 teams.

CUSA is over hyped and the WAC is under appreciated. I would expect that would cause the WAC fans to revel in showing you up, one point win or not.

.....and Nevada was an afterthought in the WAC last year, and won your conference this year, so what the hell does that say?

Think before you post nonsense.

The Knight Time Wrote:I find it hilarious that some of you are touting conference "superiority" after Nevada won off a missed PAT.

Do you honestly believe the entire game was based on a missed PAT? So the fact that UCF didn't stop Nevada from scoring 49 points had nothing to do with it? The fact that Nevada had two running backs with over 100 yards each had nothing to do with it?

The two teams were very evenly matched. But kicking is part of the game. Nevada executed their part. UCF didn't. And that was the difference.

I mean no disrespect to UCF here, you guys have a hell of a team and a very bright future. But whining on the WAC board doesn't due much for you or your team. Why not just give a little credit where credit is due?

Regading people's comments on Tulsa...not exactly fair comments. Yes Tulsa may have been an afterthought LAST year in the WAC, but that isn't the same Tulsa team, just the same as this wasn't the same Nevada team. Not really a fair comparision to draw last year into the mix. Rather a better comparison will be when Fresno plays them this year. Then we'll get a better idea of which conference is better, especially if Fresno wins. If they do, the WAC co-champs will have gone 2-0 against the CUSA co-champs, and there will be little room for argument.

Six Pack Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:I find it hilarious that some of you are touting conference "superiority" after Nevada won off a missed PAT.

Do you honestly believe the entire game was based on a missed PAT? So the fact that UCF didn't stop Nevada from scoring 49 points had nothing to do with it? The fact that Nevada had two running backs with over 100 yards each had nothing to do with it?

The two teams were very evenly matched. But kicking is part of the game. Nevada executed their part. UCF didn't. And that was the difference.

Nevada didn't stop UCF from scoring 7 touchdowns either. UCF had 260 yards rushing in the game. Those two thing essentially cancel out. It WAS an evenly matched game, so YES the missed PAT was the deciding factor. Call me crazy, but if he makes that we head to another OT in which UCF may or may not win. Keep in mind that it could be said that we SHOULD have won the OT since Nevada's fumble was not called nor reviewed.

And, I'm not whining. I just laugh when I open this thread and find people puting down CUSA and calling the WAC better, based off a game that went into OT and was decided upon a missed extra point. I can tell you that if UCF would have won, I wouldn't be blowing my horn about how CUSA is better than the WAC, because that game could have easilly gone either way.

Nevada, unlike UCF actually won games last year and was close in others.
BTW, Nevada shared the title.

The Knight Time Wrote:

Roughrider Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:I find it hilarious that some of you are touting conference "superiority" after Nevada won off a missed PAT.

Actually if you were paying attention the perception is based on your conference's entire body of work which was marginal at best. Tulsa, an after thought in the WAC, wins your conference and you're all basically .500 teams.

CUSA is over hyped and the WAC is under appreciated. I would expect that would cause the WAC fans to revel in showing you up, one point win or not.

.....and Nevada was an afterthought in the WAC last year, and won your conference this year, so what the hell does that say?

Think before you post nonsense.

Six Pack Wrote:Regading people's comments on Tulsa...not exactly fair comments. Yes Tulsa may have been an afterthought LAST year in the WAC, but that isn't the same Tulsa team, just the same as this wasn't the same Nevada team. Not really a fair comparision to draw last year into the mix. Rather a better comparison will be when Fresno plays them this year.

Dang it, Six Pack, what in the world do you think you're doing, posting reasonable & well-thought-out stuff like that?

;-)

Congratulations to the Pack on winning a close shave :shaun: and good luck to the WAC in the future. (Well OK, I'll be pulling for Tulsa at the Liberty Bowl; but good luck other than that!)

.....and Nevada was an afterthought in the WAC last year, and won your conference this year, so what the hell does that say?[/quote]

It means Nevada is a better team than last year just as UCF is a better team than the one that went O-fer. Care to dispute that?

The Knight Time Wrote:

Six Pack Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:I find it hilarious that some of you are touting conference "superiority" after Nevada won off a missed PAT.

Do you honestly believe the entire game was based on a missed PAT? So the fact that UCF didn't stop Nevada from scoring 49 points had nothing to do with it? The fact that Nevada had two running backs with over 100 yards each had nothing to do with it?

The two teams were very evenly matched. But kicking is part of the game. Nevada executed their part. UCF didn't. And that was the difference.

Nevada didn't stop UCF from scoring 7 touchdowns either. UCF had 260 yards rushing in the game. Those two thing essentially cancel out. It WAS an evenly matched game, so YES the missed PAT was the deciding factor. Call me crazy, but if he makes that we head to another OT in which UCF may or may not win. Keep in mind that it could be said that we SHOULD have won the OT since Nevada's fumble was not called nor reviewed.

And, I'm not whining. I just laugh when I open this thread and find people puting down CUSA and calling the WAC better, based off a game that went into OT and was decided upon a missed extra point. I can tell you that if UCF would have won, I wouldn't be blowing my horn about how CUSA is better than the WAC, because that game could have easilly gone either way.

I would put Nevada and Coach Aults history of winning OT games well over UCF and O'Leary's. Nevada was the first D-IA team to go to an overtime in a bowl (and won). Ault has plenty of experience in winning tougher DI-AA post season games. IF there was another overtime Nevada would have won. Not that it means anything because UCF lost.

The Knight Time Wrote:[quote="Six Pack"][quote="The Knight Time"] I just laugh when I open this thread and find people puting down CUSA and calling the WAC better

You do realize though, that you are on the WAC bbs, right?

What else would you expect fans here to say? Of course you're going to get a biased opinion, but when the argument is 'which conference is better?' AND you're on the WAC board AND the WAC is 1-0 against CUSA, what else would you expect people to say at this point?

That's the nature of these boards...people are going to be homers.

I would put Nevada and Coach Aults history of winning OT games well over UCF and O'Leary's. Nevada was the first D-IA team to go to an overtime in a bowl (and won). Ault has plenty of experience in winning tougher DI-AA post season games. IF there was another overtime Nevada would have won. Not that it means anything because UCF lost.[/quote]

You do know that we lost that overtime game to Toledo don't you?

The Knight Time Wrote:

Six Pack Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:I find it hilarious that some of you are touting conference "superiority" after Nevada won off a missed PAT.

Do you honestly believe the entire game was based on a missed PAT? So the fact that UCF didn't stop Nevada from scoring 49 points had nothing to do with it? The fact that Nevada had two running backs with over 100 yards each had nothing to do with it?

The two teams were very evenly matched. But kicking is part of the game. Nevada executed their part. UCF didn't. And that was the difference.

Nevada didn't stop UCF from scoring 7 touchdowns either. UCF had 260 yards rushing in the game. Those two thing essentially cancel out. It WAS an evenly matched game, so YES the missed PAT was the deciding factor. Call me crazy, but if he makes that we head to another OT in which UCF may or may not win. Keep in mind that it could be said that we SHOULD have won the OT since Nevada's fumble was not called nor reviewed.

And, I'm not whining. I just laugh when I open this thread and find people puting down CUSA and calling the WAC better, based off a game that went into OT and was decided upon a missed extra point. I can tell you that if UCF would have won, I wouldn't be blowing my horn about how CUSA is better than the WAC, because that game could have easilly gone either way.

Just like the fumble by your QB on that drive at the end of the game where it was a fumble by him but wasn't reviewed or anything either. But it was an even game and either team could have won it. I think that could be the best bowl game of this season.

Quote:a pac 10 #6(which is what hawaii is getting) will not be existent most years. even if cusa is a bad move for you guys, so is p10 #6. you guys are gonna be stuck with an at large every other year.

It's mainly for years when 6-6 teams (and above) are eligible for Bowl Games.

The Hawaii Bowl is only getting a Pac10 team for 2006. C-USA returns in 2007 per a 4 year extension signed in Sept. I can assure you that if the Pac10 fails to get a 6th team that C-USA will get first consideration due to their relationship.

St. Patrick Eagle Wrote:The Hawaii Bowl is only getting a Pac10 team for 2006. C-USA returns in 2007 per a 4 year extension signed in Sept. I can assure you that if the Pac10 fails to get a 6th team that C-USA will get first consideration due to their relationship.

Actually from what I read its an every other year thing. Pac-10 will get it next year, then will be C-USA the following year, then back to the Pac-10 and then to C-USA again.

There are several articles on the subject of the Hawaii Bowl affiliation. Some write that C-USA and the Pac-10 will alternate years up until 2009.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/colle...tf-knights

But I think the more accurate picture is...the Pac-10 can "choose" to come back to the Hawaii Bowl in either 2008 or 09. The option is theirs.

ESPN Regional has built a lot of flexibility into this current contract to accomodate the Pac-10.

ESPN Regional is definitely "courting" the Pac-10. Must be nice to be a BCS powerhouse.

wolf pack 1 Wrote:I would put Nevada and Coach Aults history of winning OT games well over UCF and O'Leary's. Nevada was the first D-IA team to go to an overtime in a bowl (and won). Ault has plenty of experience in winning tougher DI-AA post season games. IF there was another overtime Nevada would have won. Not that it means anything because UCF lost.

You do know that we lost that overtime game to Toledo don't you?[/quote]


SHHH!!! They didn't have to know that!