Like GSU Eagles said, we need to get a couple of ranked teams and consistently have a team or two in the top 25 in order to get true respect. That's how CUSA and MWC and even the WAC did it.

I'm not sure CUSA, MWC or WAC has true respect. And with everybody playing conference hopscotch these days --- well, conferences don't mean what they once did. What they mean now is $$. Ridiculous amounts of $$.

Any Non-P5 respect will always go the AAC or MWC and until the Sun Belt actually does something nationally significant, things will stay that way. The general perception of the SBC is that it is a small step above FCS. Even though they were statistically the best conference out of the non-AQ this past year, perception-wise, they are still by far the worst conference in FBS.

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  Any Non-P5 respect will always go the AAC or MWC and until the Sun Belt actually does something nationally significant, things will stay that way. The general perception of the SBC is that it is a small step above FCS. Even though they were statistically the best conference out of the non-AQ this past year, perception-wise, they are still by far the worst conference in FBS.

Perception is much easier to overcome by winning. All it takes is one top 25 team and we've got that.

Nobody in the P5 considers the Sun Belt or CUSA, the MAC, as having much, if any, separation. They are all, "those" conferences.

(02-06-2014 04:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  Any Non-P5 respect will always go the AAC or MWC and until the Sun Belt actually does something nationally significant, things will stay that way. The general perception of the SBC is that it is a small step above FCS. Even though they were statistically the best conference out of the non-AQ this past year, perception-wise, they are still by far the worst conference in FBS.

Perception is much easier to overcome by winning. All it takes is one top 25 team and we've got that.

But with that you are assuming others will not be doing the same. Also have you figured in the affect NMST and Idaho will have on the average rating on the SBC?

1-5 is just the average of all teams in a conference so wouldn't that make it much harder for the SBC to stay at #1? Something else to consider most of the SBC's wins over CUSA came against schools no longer in the conference.


But there's always two side to that..now they will be over AAC schools (if you win those games) so the perception would be even better wins...since the AAC is perceived to be better than CUSA.

(02-06-2014 05:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  Any Non-P5 respect will always go the AAC or MWC and until the Sun Belt actually does something nationally significant, things will stay that way. The general perception of the SBC is that it is a small step above FCS. Even though they were statistically the best conference out of the non-AQ this past year, perception-wise, they are still by far the worst conference in FBS.

Perception is much easier to overcome by winning. All it takes is one top 25 team and we've got that.

But with that you are assuming others will not be doing the same. Also have you figured in the affect NMST and Idaho will have on the average rating on the SBC?

1-5 is just the average of all teams in a conference so wouldn't that make it much harder for the SBC to stay at #1? Something else to consider most of the SBC's wins over CUSA came against schools no longer in the conference.


But there's always two side to that..now they will be over AAC schools (if you win those games) so the perception would be even better wins...since the AAC is perceived to be better than CUSA.

The AAC and the MWC are still the best of the rest. They will be for the foreseeable future. Most of the Belt programs are still new to FBS and the other programs are basically new as well (stAte & Louisiana) considering that it has only been 4 years since the admin committed to athletics.

The AAC has borderline AQ programs that are now rejects. The MWC has the same on the west coast. The rest of us Belt, CUSA and MAC have really not took that step to the next level, the MAC has ranked teams but the bottom of that league couldn't win the Southland.

The Sun Belt just really needs to continue to win OOC games and pull off an upset or two.

(02-06-2014 06:43 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  The AAC and the MWC are still the best of the rest. They will be for the foreseeable future. Most of the Belt programs are still new to FBS and the other programs are basically new as well (stAte & Louisiana) considering that it has only been 4 years since the admin committed to athletics.

The AAC has borderline AQ programs that are now rejects. The MWC has the same on the west coast. The rest of us Belt, CUSA and MAC have really not took that step to the next level, the MAC has ranked teams but the bottom of that league couldn't win the Southland.

The Sun Belt just really needs to continue to win OOC games and pull off an upset or two.

It's really the same pathway that the SBC has taken since it added football. We made considerable progress catching up over the years.

I consider conference realignment a reset. The difference is that this time we start out from a better starting position and those directly in front of us are not as strong as they were then.

We are still underdogs and those in front inherited a few of the advantages. But the hill the SBC has to climb is nowhere near as steep as the one it was climbing in the previous era.

The problem is stability, and whether everyone is really dedicated to getting there. Right now, not so much.

(02-06-2014 05:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  Any Non-P5 respect will always go the AAC or MWC and until the Sun Belt actually does something nationally significant, things will stay that way. The general perception of the SBC is that it is a small step above FCS. Even though they were statistically the best conference out of the non-AQ this past year, perception-wise, they are still by far the worst conference in FBS.

Perception is much easier to overcome by winning. All it takes is one top 25 team and we've got that.

But with that you are assuming others will not be doing the same. Also have you figured in the affect NMST and Idaho will have on the average rating on the SBC?

1-5 is just the average of all teams in a conference so wouldn't that make it much harder for the SBC to stay at #1? Something else to consider most of the SBC's wins over CUSA came against schools no longer in the conference.


But there's always two side to that..now they will be over AAC schools (if you win those games) so the perception would be even better wins...since the AAC is perceived to be better than CUSA.

You're still operating off the assumption that NMSU and Idaho cant get their act together. Even if they don't, what is the difference between them and UAB and FIU?

G5 is pretty roughly divided right now between administrations that care about athletics, and administrations that see it as something they do because everyone else does it.

The G5 teams near the top are consistently the ones whose schools put more money into Athletics...and work to make it strong. There are examples of those in every league. Likewise, there are G5 schools that don't put a lot of stock into athletics...there are examples of those in every league.

(02-06-2014 07:09 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 05:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  Any Non-P5 respect will always go the AAC or MWC and until the Sun Belt actually does something nationally significant, things will stay that way. The general perception of the SBC is that it is a small step above FCS. Even though they were statistically the best conference out of the non-AQ this past year, perception-wise, they are still by far the worst conference in FBS.

Perception is much easier to overcome by winning. All it takes is one top 25 team and we've got that.

But with that you are assuming others will not be doing the same. Also have you figured in the affect NMST and Idaho will have on the average rating on the SBC?

1-5 is just the average of all teams in a conference so wouldn't that make it much harder for the SBC to stay at #1? Something else to consider most of the SBC's wins over CUSA came against schools no longer in the conference.


But there's always two side to that..now they will be over AAC schools (if you win those games) so the perception would be even better wins...since the AAC is perceived to be better than CUSA.

You're still operating off the assumption that NMSU and Idaho cant get their act together. Even if they don't, what is the difference between them and UAB and FIU?

G5 is pretty roughly divided right now between administrations that care about athletics, and administrations that see it as something they do because everyone else does it.

The G5 teams near the top are consistently the ones whose schools put more money into Athletics...and work to make it strong. There are examples of those in every league. Likewise, there are G5 schools that don't put a lot of stock into athletics...there are examples of those in every league.

Why is everything CUSA vs SBC? Reread what I asked (said) and tell me how UAB, FIU or any CUSA schools has to do with what I said.

The question was since the ranking is made up of the combine average of everyone in the conference what affect will adding two schools that are usually in the bottom 10-15 have on the SBC keeping the #1 ranking.


nothing to do with CUSA

But you're right two schools that had a combine 18 wins over the last 4 years with half of those coming against each other or FCS schools could start winning.

But if all of a sudden those schools start winning what does that say?

The only point in this is to say the SBC will have a harder time being #1 again with the new additions. Especially since there will most likely be a true bottom in the conference...just as in the other conferences

(02-06-2014 07:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 07:09 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 05:58 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 04:54 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  Any Non-P5 respect will always go the AAC or MWC and until the Sun Belt actually does something nationally significant, things will stay that way. The general perception of the SBC is that it is a small step above FCS. Even though they were statistically the best conference out of the non-AQ this past year, perception-wise, they are still by far the worst conference in FBS.

Perception is much easier to overcome by winning. All it takes is one top 25 team and we've got that.

But with that you are assuming others will not be doing the same. Also have you figured in the affect NMST and Idaho will have on the average rating on the SBC?

1-5 is just the average of all teams in a conference so wouldn't that make it much harder for the SBC to stay at #1? Something else to consider most of the SBC's wins over CUSA came against schools no longer in the conference.


But there's always two side to that..now they will be over AAC schools (if you win those games) so the perception would be even better wins...since the AAC is perceived to be better than CUSA.

You're still operating off the assumption that NMSU and Idaho cant get their act together. Even if they don't, what is the difference between them and UAB and FIU?

G5 is pretty roughly divided right now between administrations that care about athletics, and administrations that see it as something they do because everyone else does it.

The G5 teams near the top are consistently the ones whose schools put more money into Athletics...and work to make it strong. There are examples of those in every league. Likewise, there are G5 schools that don't put a lot of stock into athletics...there are examples of those in every league.

Why is everything CUSA vs SBC? Reread what I asked (said) and tell me how UAB, FIU or any CUSA schools has to do with what I said.

The question was since the ranking is made up of the combine average of everyone in the conference what affect will adding two schools that are usually in the bottom 10-15 have on the SBC keeping the #1 ranking.


nothing to do with CUSA

But you're right two schools that had a combine 18 wins over the last 4 years with half of those coming against each other or FCS schools could start winning.

But if all of a sudden those schools start winning what does that say?

The only point in this is to say the SBC will have a harder time being #1 again with the new additions. Especially since there will most likely be a true bottom in the conference...just as in the other conferences

Your argument is essentially that NMSU and Idaho will make it harder for the SBC to reach the #1 conference ranking simply because they have been so bad recently and will most likely bringing up the bottom f the league.

My counter is that the MAC was able to compete for the top spot despite having Eastern Michigan and UMass bringing up the rear.

The AAC will have to compete with Temple's notorious football struggles. They will have to figure out a way for South Florida and UConn to become competitive again. CUSA is going to have to get the disaster that is Southern Miss football figured out while still dealing with the major issues in place at UAB, and an FIU program that has yet to prove its ready to recreate the Cristobal years.

Every league has a bottom team.

You're right EVERY league had a bottom but the SBC had fewer number of schools which lowered the number at the bottom and that is what it took to get the #1 ranking this year... with the addition of 4 new schools and two of them historically bottom schools it's going to make that a lot more difficult.

The argument never was about other conferences and what they need to do or their problems.

It was the perception of the SBC being below the others and someone made the point that the SBC was ranked #1 this year...

that's a fact, a fact that can't be denied, and a accomplishment for the SBC and no one can take that away for 2013.

So the argument was with the SBC being #1 all the SBC had to do was win more and the perception will take care of it's self . Part of that's correct...winning helps but my point was with the additions it's going to be a lot harder getting back to #1. So the advantage of being smaller (lot smaller) this past season and with a smaller bottom is gone and that makes it harder to keep part of the argument....

of course winning is the most important and that's still possible

(02-06-2014 07:30 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Your argument is essentially that NMSU and Idaho will make it harder for the SBC to reach the #1 conference ranking simply because they have been so bad recently and will most likely bringing up the bottom f the league.

My counter is that the MAC was able to compete for the top spot despite having Eastern Michigan and UMass bringing up the rear.

The AAC will have to compete with Temple's notorious football struggles. They will have to figure out a way for South Florida and UConn to become competitive again. CUSA is going to have to get the disaster that is Southern Miss football figured out while still dealing with the major issues in place at UAB, and an FIU program that has yet to prove its ready to recreate the Cristobal years.

Every league has a bottom team.

A lot of FUD being spread lately.

SBC football has made a whole lot of progress since it started the sport. During that time we had WKU with a horrendous losing streak dragging us down. We had the F_U's spending a lot of time in the Bottom 10 and yet we've still gotten to the point where we've had some teams getting votes in the Top 25....a team being forecast as the BCS buster for next year....and this year finally winning the non-AQ sweeps. Our bottom teams haven't stopped our progress before.

(02-06-2014 07:48 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 07:30 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Your argument is essentially that NMSU and Idaho will make it harder for the SBC to reach the #1 conference ranking simply because they have been so bad recently and will most likely bringing up the bottom f the league.

My counter is that the MAC was able to compete for the top spot despite having Eastern Michigan and UMass bringing up the rear.

The AAC will have to compete with Temple's notorious football struggles. They will have to figure out a way for South Florida and UConn to become competitive again. CUSA is going to have to get the disaster that is Southern Miss football figured out while still dealing with the major issues in place at UAB, and an FIU program that has yet to prove its ready to recreate the Cristobal years.

Every league has a bottom team.

A lot of FUD being spread lately.

SBC football has made a whole lot of progress since it started the sport. During that time we had WKU with a horrendous losing streak dragging us down. We had the F_U's spending a lot of time in the Bottom 10 and yet we've still gotten to the point where we've had some teams getting votes in the Top 25....a team being forecast as the BCS buster for next year....and this year finally winning the non-AQ sweeps. Our bottom teams haven't stopped our progress before.

The SBC produced those results because we had the best combined OOC record against G5 opponents...which in the end is a huge factor because league play cancels out.

Ultimately...that will be the deciding factor next year as well. NMSU and Idaho might hurt, but if Georgia State improves and Georgia Southern and App don't fall flat, that should all even out in the end.

(02-06-2014 07:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  You're right EVERY league had a bottom but the SBC had fewer number of schools which lowered the number at the bottom and that is what it took to get the #1 ranking this year... with the addition of 4 new schools and two of them historically bottom schools it's going to make that a lot more difficult.

The argument never was about other conferences and what they need to do or their problems.

It was the perception of the SBC being below the others and someone made the point that the SBC was ranked #1 this year...

that's a fact, a fact that can't be denied, and a accomplishment for the SBC and no one can take that away for 2013.

So the argument was with the SBC being #1 all the SBC had to do was win more and the perception will take care of it's self . Part of that's correct...winning helps but my point was with the additions it's going to be a lot harder getting back to #1. So the advantage of being smaller (lot smaller) this past season and with a smaller bottom is gone and that makes it harder to keep part of the argument....

of course winning is the most important and that's still possible

I think App and Ga Southern will be at least on par or better than fau/fiu next year. Ga State was the worst team in FBS and the SBC still managed to to finish as the #1 G5 conference. I think Ga State will be much better, so that means brining in NMSU and Idaho results in a net of one more bottom feeder over last year. Given that the SBC finished well 3 spots ahead of CUSA, I don't see us dropping 3 spots as a result of the conference shifts.

(02-06-2014 07:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  with the additions it's going to be a lot harder getting back to #1

If the AAC is added into the calculations it will be difficult to be #1 for everyone not the AAC.

What was important about the #1 rating this year is in comparison with the competitors directly in front of us in the pecking order. It is not actually an indicator that the SBC is the superior conference, it is an indicator that the SBC is making progress and gives us hard evidence amongst ourselves that we are not tilting at windmills.

When WKU won its first SBC game, it did not prove that WKU was the best SBC program. It proved that WKU was making progress and that it COULD be the best SBC program. Winning the #1 ranking this year is much the same for the SBC.

These are milestones, like getting votes in the Top 25 is a milestone, like ending the season wthout any teams in the Bottom 10 is a milestone, like a conference member beating a #8 team on the road is a milestone, like having a bunch of bowl eligible teams is a milestone. We just have to string enough milestones together.

There must be a collective comprehension problem going on in this topic because CUSA has nothing well..at most 20% with the SBC retaining the #1 rated spot again next year.

Chiefsfan I think the OOC wins had very little to do with the SBC ranking...beating each other and having a conference full of average (record) schools had more to do with having the better average

(02-06-2014 08:08 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There must be a collective comprehension problem going on in this topic because CUSA has nothing well..at most 20% with the SBC retaining the #1 rated spot again next year.

Chiefsfan I think the OOC wins had very little to do with the SBC ranking...beating each other and having a conference full of average (record) schools had more to do with having the better average

OOC has a lot to do with it. In fact almost all to do with it. Your conference wins and losses always even out to the same number regardless how many teams go 0 for 8 and how many go 8-0. League records always even out to .500. CUSA went 56-56 last year in league. SBC 28-28.

Its the OOC games that make or break the bank.

(02-06-2014 08:18 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 08:08 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There must be a collective comprehension problem going on in this topic because CUSA has nothing well..at most 20% with the SBC retaining the #1 rated spot again next year.

Chiefsfan I think the OOC wins had very little to do with the SBC ranking...beating each other and having a conference full of average (record) schools had more to do with having the better average

OOC has a lot to do with it. In fact almost all to do with it. Your conference wins and losses always even out to the same number regardless how many teams go 0 for 8 and how many go 8-0. League records always even out to .500. CUSA went 56-56 last year in league. SBC 28-28.

Its the OOC games that make or break the bank.

Of course every conference will go .500 once during conference play but it's not like every win = every loss because there is no formula in play . It's the average of every school in the conference and if it was OOC then Western and TXST would have been ahead of UL-L and ASU because both had better and more wins and only one loss.

(02-06-2014 09:53 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Of course every conference will go .500 once during conference play but it's not like every win = every loss because there is no formula in play . It's the average of every school in the conference and if it was OOC then Western and TXST would have been ahead of UL-L and ASU because both had better and more wins and only one loss.

Having trouble following your first sentence.

But your 2nd has some meaning. TXST and WKU OOC wins counted toward the total.