here a link describing it
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/spo...z32StGmkV4

they actually never wanted 16 (at that time) they wanted to go with 12 but their hands were forced. it was unknown grounds at that time to have so many and it wasnt even remotely thought out
espn already told them from the get go before expanding that the number of teams were meaningless they were getting the same contract money either way and a second for the championship game so anything above 12 meant nothing.

they original were already in talks with big west schools and practical had it finalized with the teams they wanted but then the swc broke up and "better teams" than the ones they were taking to became available. so they took both.

they had a hard time deciding division had a hard time agreeing with anything. pods were the only way to get people in the geographical fits they wanted but even with that certain teams wanted permanent division and didnt like pods, and when they tried to return to divisions the original problems of who's in what division re-happened and a few teams even threatened indy.
the breaking point was when everyone who wanted to be in the same division but couldnt because of geographical reasons/upsetting other teams just left and formed the mwc

the biggest difference is that the age of football has changed
1) the wac broke up because of desired rivalries, that isnt important anymore in 2013, its about money, we'll all sellout our rivalries for money in heartbeat in todays world
2) indy was a legit option then so walking out was easy
3) forming a new conference wasnt as difficult as it is today with ncaa contracts, bowl stuff & unrealistically expensive conference buyouts making a new football conference isnt that easy

most of the WAC problems wouldnt be in a AAC problem, 1) we'd be more inclined to work out our problems as there arent many plan b's 2) divisions would be simple east and west, west = 4 byu/mwc, the 2 Texas, tulsa and tulane 3) many other conferences have gone large numbers not 16 but enough to show a large conference can work, both the big 10 and pac 12 would go to 16 if they could get the teams they want.

(05-22-2014 12:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:41 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:34 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:28 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Not sure how its diluted. Every team in the AAC has a higher athletic budget than the MWC sans Boise and the conference is in bigger eastern markets. We don't want 6 teams from the west because there arent 6 teams good enough. You add BYU, Boise, SDSU, and UNLV and call it a day.

I'm talking about the athletic qualities, not how big your budget is. The adds that were made were not made with making a "best of the rest conf". Which is fine if thats what you are going for.

ECU absolutely fits in the "best of the rest".

I'm open to having my mind changed, but considering all factors (beyond just football), I put ECU behind Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, and probably on par with UNLV when it comes to value to a conference.

Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:41 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:34 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  I'm talking about the athletic qualities, not how big your budget is. The adds that were made were not made with making a "best of the rest conf". Which is fine if thats what you are going for.

ECU absolutely fits in the "best of the rest".

I'm open to having my mind changed, but considering all factors (beyond just football), I put ECU behind Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, and probably on par with UNLV when it comes to value to a conference.

Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

I think we can safely say the the TV market argument was bunk. See all those zeros at the end of the AAC TV contract.

One of the reasons the WAC - 16 failed is because it split up long time rivalries. They split into 4 pods of 4, as there weren't eight teams that naturally fit either East-West or North-South. As a result, they couldn't come up with permanent divisions. Long time rivals such as Colorado State and Air Force were not in the same pods and were not scheduled to play and that upset the range schools and they started the process of splitting off and creating the MWC. That and everyone wanted to play BYU which caused issues as well.

I would love to see this conference be proactive though. Go out there and do something big and set it's own narrative.

(05-22-2014 01:02 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  I think we can safely say the the TV market argument was bunk. See all those zeros at the end of the AAC TV contract.

I think it's more a matter of owning ones market. BSU has a small market but owns it and draws good TV #'s. UNLV has a huge market but sucks so they don't have a lot of football support and less attractive TV numbers. A lot of the schools in the East have more P5 teams to compete with for the market share.

(05-22-2014 12:41 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:34 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:28 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:26 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  The league is to dilited as this point. Should have taken the best 6 from the east and the best 6 from the west.

Not sure how its diluted. Every team in the AAC has a higher athletic budget than the MWC sans Boise and the conference is in bigger eastern markets. We don't want 6 teams from the west because there arent 6 teams good enough. You add BYU, Boise, SDSU, and UNLV and call it a day.

I'm talking about the athletic qualities, not how big your budget is. The adds that were made were not made with making a "best of the rest conf". Which is fine if thats what you are going for.

ECU absolutely fits in the "best of the rest".

I'm open to having my mind changed, but considering all factors (beyond just football), I put ECU behind Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, and probably on par with UNLV when it comes to value to a conference.

ECU is better (in football since conference realignment is all about football) than all those except Boise. It draws better than all including BsU and NC market is top 10 and growing. ECU is a no brainer in this conference, western wing or not. Air Force is worth doing only if you get Army along with navy. Colorado St, Fresno, unlv, even SDSU are a reach at best. The old Big East was the butt of jokes when they invited Boise and SDSU, that move was bound to fail.

BYU is the only real school out west worth looking at IMO. The AAC even with Tulane and Tulsa is better than the MWC in just about every measure. Add BYU to the west we have now and be done with it. Otherwise stand with what you have and you're the 6th best conference most years.

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:41 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:37 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  ECU absolutely fits in the "best of the rest".

I'm open to having my mind changed, but considering all factors (beyond just football), I put ECU behind Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, and probably on par with UNLV when it comes to value to a conference.

Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

(05-22-2014 01:08 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:02 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  I think we can safely say the the TV market argument was bunk. See all those zeros at the end of the AAC TV contract.

I think it's more a matter of owning ones market. BSU has a small market but owns it and draws good TV #'s. UNLV has a huge market but sucks so they don't have a lot of football support and less attractive TV numbers. A lot of the schools in the East have more P5 teams to compete with for the market share.

Agreed, its about ratings.

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:41 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  I'm open to having my mind changed, but considering all factors (beyond just football), I put ECU behind Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, and probably on par with UNLV when it comes to value to a conference.

Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

We are not clearly behind them. And we're not clearly behind anyone in the AAC since we have a winning record against everyone here except USF.

(05-22-2014 01:20 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

We are not clearly behind them. And we're not clearly behind anyone in the AAC since we have a winning record against everyone here except USF.

If you win 10 games a year for the next 3 and Fresno loses 10 a year the records will even out. Fresno is a pretty solid football team. I think they have a lot in common with ECU

(05-22-2014 01:23 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:20 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

We are not clearly behind them. And we're not clearly behind anyone in the AAC since we have a winning record against everyone here except USF.

If you win 10 games a year for the next 3 and Fresno loses 10 a year the records will even out. Fresno is a pretty solid football team. I think they have a lot in common with ECU

He cherry picked years so that it included ECU's worst 3 year stint in program history

(05-22-2014 01:20 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

We are not clearly behind them. And we're not clearly behind anyone in the AAC since we have a winning record against everyone here except USF.

In terms of value to a conference, you are clearly behind CSU/AFA/Fresno.

ECU vs Fresno
Market - Fresno
W/L - Fresno
Endowment - Tie

ECU vs AFA
Market - AFA
W/L - Tie (being generous here)
Endowment - AFA

ECU vs CSU
Market - CSU
W/L - Tie
Endowment - CSU

Sorry man, truth hurts. Next 5 years if ECU is as good as they've been the past 5, they'll certainly catch up to these programs.

(05-22-2014 01:26 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:23 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:20 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

We are not clearly behind them. And we're not clearly behind anyone in the AAC since we have a winning record against everyone here except USF.

If you win 10 games a year for the next 3 and Fresno loses 10 a year the records will even out. Fresno is a pretty solid football team. I think they have a lot in common with ECU

He cherry picked years so that it included ECU's worst 3 year stint in program history

LOL. I picked 1997 because that is when you joined our conference!

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:41 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  I'm open to having my mind changed, but considering all factors (beyond just football), I put ECU behind Boise State, Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, and probably on par with UNLV when it comes to value to a conference.

Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

All those teams have played in weak conferences too. Endowments have nothing to do with it. How many BCS wins do Colo St, Fresno, and Air Force have in the past 20 years? Not too many I would guess.

How does Houston compare with those schools? Maybe Houston shouldn't have been invited to the AAC before Fresno, Colorado St, or Air Force too. LOL

(05-22-2014 01:26 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:26 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:23 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:20 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

We are not clearly behind them. And we're not clearly behind anyone in the AAC since we have a winning record against everyone here except USF.

If you win 10 games a year for the next 3 and Fresno loses 10 a year the records will even out. Fresno is a pretty solid football team. I think they have a lot in common with ECU

He cherry picked years so that it included ECU's worst 3 year stint in program history

LOL. I picked 1997 because that is when you joined our conference!

Houston won 104 in the same time period

(05-22-2014 01:27 PM)First Mate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:43 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Please explain the factors, since you go beyond football, I'll say (beyond TV market)

LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

All those teams have played in weak conferences too. Endowments have nothing to do with it. How many BCS wins do Colo St, Fresno, and Air Force have in the past 20 years? Not too many I would guess.

How does Houston compare with those schools? Maybe Houston shouldn't have been invited to the AAC before Fresno, Colorado St, or Air Force too. LOL

And here comes the avalanche of butthurt...



So much for an honest, productive discussion.

(05-22-2014 01:30 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:27 PM)First Mate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:54 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  LOL. Well if you take away football performance and TV market/ratings, the only thing you have left is basically academics/endowment.

If you include football, only Boise is better than ECU from that list and Fresno is on par. Colorado State has a losing history and I wont even speak of UNLV football.

TV: ECU: 99

Boise Market: 111
UNLV Market: 40
USAFA: 91
CSU: 18

W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

All those teams have played in weak conferences too. Endowments have nothing to do with it. How many BCS wins do Colo St, Fresno, and Air Force have in the past 20 years? Not too many I would guess.

How does Houston compare with those schools? Maybe Houston shouldn't have been invited to the AAC before Fresno, Colorado St, or Air Force too. LOL

And here comes the avalanche of butthurt...



So much for an honest, productive discussion.

Houston seriously has the exact same 104-101 record

(05-22-2014 01:26 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:26 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:23 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:20 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:13 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  W/L Since 1997:

ECU - 104/101 (this includes last year in a super weak CUSA)
Fresno - 131/84
AFA - 117/90
CSU - 106/104
UNLV -

ECU is on par performance wise only with CSU, but CSU's market and endowment blow ECU away, so that tie is effectively broken.

Air Force's value is significant being a service academy, and their performance on the field is better than ECU.

Fresno, clearly better on the field and a nice market (55).

UNLV may stink, but obviously their market is good and they're investing in their programs. Lots of intangibles there. I consider them on par with ECU in terms of value.

Not trying to flame. I think UNLV is a good comparison, but you are clearly behind Fresno/AFA/CSU.

We are not clearly behind them. And we're not clearly behind anyone in the AAC since we have a winning record against everyone here except USF.

If you win 10 games a year for the next 3 and Fresno loses 10 a year the records will even out. Fresno is a pretty solid football team. I think they have a lot in common with ECU

He cherry picked years so that it included ECU's worst 3 year stint in program history

LOL. I picked 1997 because that is when you joined our conference!

2003 is a good year to start because thats when the BCS started. 10 year span is a pretty good indicator as well.