(12-26-2014 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 04:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big XII did okay too. WVU has won more BCS bowl games than Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Mizzou combined. TCU can match those schools total too.

Disagree. The big 12 lost FOUR members and were only able to backfill with two.

The acc lost a charter member, which is obviously a bad thing. But I will say this in terms of ratings - did I ever go out of my way to watch Maryland vs FSU or Clemson? Nope. Did I go out of my way to watch Louisville play those schools? You bet I did. Do I make a greater effort to watch Louisville in bball? You bet. I think it's fair to say that Louisville improves the acc in football and bball, which would also be a mitigating factor in losing a charter member. No slight intended toward Maryland or the b1g, just saying that, as a fan and alum, I'm more interested in the games now than I was before.

I know several Clemson fans, and one thing they've told me they already do miss is Maryland versus Clemson in football. Nouveaux-ACC fans who have grown up in the FSU era don't realize this, but for many years, from the 1950s well into the 1980s, Maryland vs Clemson was the biggest rivalry in ACC football, often deciding the conference title.

As for Louisville, their football is, historically, almost nothing. The two Teddy B years, 2012-2013, constitute literally about half of all their historical achievements in football. Seriously, before 2012, there were maybe two seasons in Louisville history where it was worth anyone's time to go out of their way to watch Louisville play anyone in football, much less FSU or Clemson. So you must be a real recent Clemson fan. :)

I've logged 25 years. And Maryland has only been good a few of those years. Yes, there is some history, but when I was a student in the early 90s, the Maryland game was pretty inconsequential with us.

(12-26-2014 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 08:57 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 01:19 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  [quote='UConn-SMU' pid='11588889' dateline='1419546718']
The Big East was perceived to be #6 in FB. Now the AAC is perceived to be #6 in FB.

I don't see a huge difference.

No one outside of a few AAC homers considers them to be the number six conference

Really, hows this bowl season working out for the MWC.

I'd say pretty lousy. Also, pretty unlucky in terms of matchups. I mean, how did 6-7 Fresno even make a bowl? And Nevada wasn't going to travel 2,000 miles to New Orleans and beat UL-L. CSU had to face a top-25 P5 team, and SDSU lost by a missed 30 yard field goal.

So mostly bad matchups, and some bad luck (Navy).

Still, nobody considered the AAC to be the best G5 football conference this year, and let's face it - we weren't. Which is one reason we didn't get the Access slot.
[/quo

I would be extremely disappointed if any of our tri-champions along with ECU and Houston lost in a bowl to the teams that beat the mwc. Remember, Fresno was in their conference championship game and their champion only beat them by 14. UL-L is not exactly LSU. You should expect to beat them even on the moon. Boise will get blown out in their game.

I really do not understand your love for the mwc (not sarcastic). Am I overlooking some out of conference wins? IMO, the AAC would have been ok, except for Houston's terrible out of conference losses. Cincinnati did not help things with their horrible defensive performance in all their early games.

Speaking as a Rutgers fan and an NJ resident, I know that my school's athletic department was the biggest winner, and as an extension, I was as well. The move to the Big 10 protected the investment made in sports over the last 20 years.

I miss the Big East. Moreso during basketball season than football season, but it still was our best home from a region/rivalry perspective. I also missed the days of the Princeton/Lehigh/Lafayette rivalries, but times change.

(12-26-2014 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 04:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big XII did okay too. WVU has won more BCS bowl games than Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Mizzou combined. TCU can match those schools total too.

Disagree. The big 12 lost FOUR members and were only able to backfill with two.

The acc lost a charter member, which is obviously a bad thing. But I will say this in terms of ratings - did I ever go out of my way to watch Maryland vs FSU or Clemson? Nope. Did I go out of my way to watch Louisville play those schools? You bet I did. Do I make a greater effort to watch Louisville in bball? You bet. I think it's fair to say that Louisville improves the acc in football and bball, which would also be a mitigating factor in losing a charter member. No slight intended toward Maryland or the b1g, just saying that, as a fan and alum, I'm more interested in the games now than I was before.

I know several Clemson fans, and one thing they've told me they already do miss is Maryland versus Clemson in football. Nouveaux-ACC fans who have grown up in the FSU era don't realize this, but for many years, from the 1950s well into the 1980s, Maryland vs Clemson was the biggest rivalry in ACC football, often deciding the conference title.

As for Louisville, their football is, historically, almost nothing. The two Teddy B years, 2012-2013, constitute literally about half of all their historical achievements in football. Seriously, before 2012, there were maybe two seasons in Louisville history where it was worth anyone's time to go out of their way to watch Louisville play anyone in football, much less FSU or Clemson. So you must be a real recent Clemson fan. :)

Since I have been watching college football (35 years) Louisville has been superior to Maryland. Maryland was decent in the early 80's with Essiason. They had a couple midpack teams in the 90's and 2000's. I cannot remember a single top 10 finish, and very few top 25 finishes. As you mentioned, Louisville had the Teddy years along with several top 10 teams in the 2000's. I also remember Louisville having some top 25 teams in the early 90's. I have no knowledge of either team before 1980.

(12-26-2014 10:19 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 08:57 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 01:19 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  [quote='UConn-SMU' pid='11588889' dateline='1419546718']
The Big East was perceived to be #6 in FB. Now the AAC is perceived to be #6 in FB.

I don't see a huge difference.

No one outside of a few AAC homers considers them to be the number six conference

Really, hows this bowl season working out for the MWC.

I'd say pretty lousy. Also, pretty unlucky in terms of matchups. I mean, how did 6-7 Fresno even make a bowl? And Nevada wasn't going to travel 2,000 miles to New Orleans and beat UL-L. CSU had to face a top-25 P5 team, and SDSU lost by a missed 30 yard field goal.

So mostly bad matchups, and some bad luck (Navy).

Still, nobody considered the AAC to be the best G5 football conference this year, and let's face it - we weren't. Which is one reason we didn't get the Access slot.
[/quo]

I would be extremely disappointed if any of our tri-champions along with ECU and Houston lost in a bowl to the teams that beat the mwc. Remember, Fresno was in their conference championship game and their champion only beat them by 14. UL-L is not exactly LSU. You should expect to beat them even on the moon. Boise will get blown out in their game.

I really do not understand your love for the mwc (not sarcastic). Am I overlooking some out of conference wins? IMO, the AAC would have been ok, except for Houston's terrible out of conference losses. Cincinnati did not help things with their horrible defensive performance in all their early games.

Fresno was 6-7 ... 6-7 is 6-7 whether you are in a championship game or not. Nevada was 7-6, and by Sagarin and Massey were clearly inferior to UL-L, plus had to travel thousands to play them in what was a quasi-home game for UL-L. Their losses are completely unsurprising, as was CSU losing to #22 Utah. Any wins by those MWC teams would have been upsets.

As for the MWC, I don't "love" it at all. I just go by the objective evidence. E.g., Sagarin and Massey and just about all computers have the MWC as the #6 conference, ahead of the AAC.

AAC fans went into this season with huge hopes of being regarded as a "tweener", and Aresco even claimed "Power" status, and if the AAC board is any indicator, the thinking was that the AAC would almost surely get the Access spot.

Overall, I am not sure how you can say that, save for Houston, the AAC would have been "OK". Pre-bowls, the AAC was not only awful versus the P5 (3-18), but also lousy versus the G5 as well (4-6). Heck, didn't UConn lose to Army?

The AAC was in no way, shape, or form anything like a "tweener" conference this year. It was just a run-of-the-mill G5 conference.

(12-26-2014 10:26 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 04:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big XII did okay too. WVU has won more BCS bowl games than Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Mizzou combined. TCU can match those schools total too.

Disagree. The big 12 lost FOUR members and were only able to backfill with two.

The acc lost a charter member, which is obviously a bad thing. But I will say this in terms of ratings - did I ever go out of my way to watch Maryland vs FSU or Clemson? Nope. Did I go out of my way to watch Louisville play those schools? You bet I did. Do I make a greater effort to watch Louisville in bball? You bet. I think it's fair to say that Louisville improves the acc in football and bball, which would also be a mitigating factor in losing a charter member. No slight intended toward Maryland or the b1g, just saying that, as a fan and alum, I'm more interested in the games now than I was before.

I know several Clemson fans, and one thing they've told me they already do miss is Maryland versus Clemson in football. Nouveaux-ACC fans who have grown up in the FSU era don't realize this, but for many years, from the 1950s well into the 1980s, Maryland vs Clemson was the biggest rivalry in ACC football, often deciding the conference title.

As for Louisville, their football is, historically, almost nothing. The two Teddy B years, 2012-2013, constitute literally about half of all their historical achievements in football. Seriously, before 2012, there were maybe two seasons in Louisville history where it was worth anyone's time to go out of their way to watch Louisville play anyone in football, much less FSU or Clemson. So you must be a real recent Clemson fan. :)

Since I have been watching college football (35 years) Louisville has been superior to Maryland. Maryland was decent in the early 80's with Essiason. They had a couple midpack teams in the 90's and 2000's. I cannot remember a single top 10 finish, and very few top 25 finishes. As you mentioned, Louisville had the Teddy years along with several top 10 teams in the 2000's. I also remember Louisville having some top 25 teams in the early 90's. I have no knowledge of either team before 1980.

Louisville had a top-10 team in 2006,when they beat Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl. Before then, it was C-USA and independent status. They had a top-25 team in 1990, the Schnellenberger Fiesta Bowl team. That was that.

Basically, before they joined the Big East in 2005, Louisville had played small-time, minor conference football their whole history. They didn't win a bowl game until 1990.

My school beats your dinky school into the ground!
Does this conference chest thumping not get old after about 10 minutes?
You're (myself included) a fan of your school, so that means your school is the best school and is in the best conference....

(12-26-2014 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 04:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big XII did okay too. WVU has won more BCS bowl games than Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Mizzou combined. TCU can match those schools total too.

Disagree. The big 12 lost FOUR members and were only able to backfill with two.

The acc lost a charter member, which is obviously a bad thing. But I will say this in terms of ratings - did I ever go out of my way to watch Maryland vs FSU or Clemson? Nope. Did I go out of my way to watch Louisville play those schools? You bet I did. Do I make a greater effort to watch Louisville in bball? You bet. I think it's fair to say that Louisville improves the acc in football and bball, which would also be a mitigating factor in losing a charter member. No slight intended toward Maryland or the b1g, just saying that, as a fan and alum, I'm more interested in the games now than I was before.

I know several Clemson fans, and one thing they've told me they already do miss is Maryland versus Clemson in football. Nouveaux-ACC fans who have grown up in the FSU era don't realize this, but for many years, from the 1950s well into the 1980s, Maryland vs Clemson was the biggest rivalry in ACC football, often deciding the conference title.

As for Louisville, their football is, historically, almost nothing. The two Teddy B years, 2012-2013, constitute literally about half of all their historical achievements in football. Seriously, before 2012, there were maybe two seasons in Louisville history where it was worth anyone's time to go out of their way to watch Louisville play anyone in football, much less FSU or Clemson. So you must be a real recent Clemson fan. :)

Fair point...but you must admit that Louisville is very serious about winning under the direction of Tom Jurich and that fact that Louisville for the past Four years has averaged over 50K in attendance...also you can say the same about South Carolina before Lou Holtz and Steve Spurrier...the only thing I would argue as well is that Louisville did win a Fiesta Bowl under Schnellenberger and in Petrino first go ahead he went 41-9 with two 11 plus win seasons...going forward, won 9 Games playing three QB including 2 Freshmen QB and without our most talented player in likely Top 10 NFL Pick DeVante Parker who missed 7 Games...5 Games and almost 1000 yards receiving....

(12-25-2014 11:17 PM)Maize Wrote:  I kmow right...one poster calling Syracuse a Bottom Feeder-(won a share of the Football Title last year in the league) and a Historical Football program with National Titles...Heisman Winners and argubly having the Greatest Football Player of All Time as a Alum in Jim Brown.

Another poster somehow trying to say Utah and TCU-(Nothing against those two programs) were more deserving of P5 Status then Louisville...on the Field, Court, Fan Support and Finacially UofL takes a back seat to nobody...

In the 8 years AFTER Miami left the BE, Syracuse won 14 league games, 9 of which were in 2 of those 8 years. Last or next to last 6 out of 8 years. That's the definition of a bottom feeder. (I'm talking football, SU didn't sink in bb).

(12-26-2014 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 10:26 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 04:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big XII did okay too. WVU has won more BCS bowl games than Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Mizzou combined. TCU can match those schools total too.

Disagree. The big 12 lost FOUR members and were only able to backfill with two.

The acc lost a charter member, which is obviously a bad thing. But I will say this in terms of ratings - did I ever go out of my way to watch Maryland vs FSU or Clemson? Nope. Did I go out of my way to watch Louisville play those schools? You bet I did. Do I make a greater effort to watch Louisville in bball? You bet. I think it's fair to say that Louisville improves the acc in football and bball, which would also be a mitigating factor in losing a charter member. No slight intended toward Maryland or the b1g, just saying that, as a fan and alum, I'm more interested in the games now than I was before.

I know several Clemson fans, and one thing they've told me they already do miss is Maryland versus Clemson in football. Nouveaux-ACC fans who have grown up in the FSU era don't realize this, but for many years, from the 1950s well into the 1980s, Maryland vs Clemson was the biggest rivalry in ACC football, often deciding the conference title.

As for Louisville, their football is, historically, almost nothing. The two Teddy B years, 2012-2013, constitute literally about half of all their historical achievements in football. Seriously, before 2012, there were maybe two seasons in Louisville history where it was worth anyone's time to go out of their way to watch Louisville play anyone in football, much less FSU or Clemson. So you must be a real recent Clemson fan. :)

Since I have been watching college football (35 years) Louisville has been superior to Maryland. Maryland was decent in the early 80's with Essiason. They had a couple midpack teams in the 90's and 2000's. I cannot remember a single top 10 finish, and very few top 25 finishes. As you mentioned, Louisville had the Teddy years along with several top 10 teams in the 2000's. I also remember Louisville having some top 25 teams in the early 90's. I have no knowledge of either team before 1980.

Louisville had a top-10 team in 2006,when they beat Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl. Before then, it was C-USA and independent status. They had a top-25 team in 1990, the Schnellenberger Fiesta Bowl team. That was that.

Basically, before they joined the Big East in 2005, Louisville had played small-time, minor conference football their whole history. They didn't win a bowl game until 1990.

True. And prior to Schnellenberger around 1990, Louisville was no different than Memphis. UL has made a lot of strides since joining the BE, but they really weren't much prior to that. A solid CUSA school in the late 90s, but not much more.

(12-26-2014 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 11:17 PM)Maize Wrote:  I kmow right...one poster calling Syracuse a Bottom Feeder-(won a share of the Football Title last year in the league) and a Historical Football program with National Titles...Heisman Winners and argubly having the Greatest Football Player of All Time as a Alum in Jim Brown.

Another poster somehow trying to say Utah and TCU-(Nothing against those two programs) were more deserving of P5 Status then Louisville...on the Field, Court, Fan Support and Finacially UofL takes a back seat to nobody...

In the 8 years AFTER Miami left the BE, Syracuse won 14 league games, 9 of which were in 2 of those 8 years. Last or next to last 6 out of 8 years. That's the definition of a bottom feeder. (I'm talking football, SU didn't sink in bb).

Their last year in the league they did win a share of the Conference Title...but they did suffer in the CRob years...

(12-26-2014 12:09 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 11:17 PM)Maize Wrote:  I kmow right...one poster calling Syracuse a Bottom Feeder-(won a share of the Football Title last year in the league) and a Historical Football program with National Titles...Heisman Winners and argubly having the Greatest Football Player of All Time as a Alum in Jim Brown.

Another poster somehow trying to say Utah and TCU-(Nothing against those two programs) were more deserving of P5 Status then Louisville...on the Field, Court, Fan Support and Finacially UofL takes a back seat to nobody...

In the 8 years AFTER Miami left the BE, Syracuse won 14 league games, 9 of which were in 2 of those 8 years. Last or next to last 6 out of 8 years. That's the definition of a bottom feeder. (I'm talking football, SU didn't sink in bb).

Their last year in the league they did win a share of the Conference Title...but they did suffer in the CRob years...

I never argued their history. But they had become a team a school like Rutgers would schedule for homecoming in the closing years of the BE.

(12-26-2014 11:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 04:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big XII did okay too. WVU has won more BCS bowl games than Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Mizzou combined. TCU can match those schools total too.

Disagree. The big 12 lost FOUR members and were only able to backfill with two.

The acc lost a charter member, which is obviously a bad thing. But I will say this in terms of ratings - did I ever go out of my way to watch Maryland vs FSU or Clemson? Nope. Did I go out of my way to watch Louisville play those schools? You bet I did. Do I make a greater effort to watch Louisville in bball? You bet. I think it's fair to say that Louisville improves the acc in football and bball, which would also be a mitigating factor in losing a charter member. No slight intended toward Maryland or the b1g, just saying that, as a fan and alum, I'm more interested in the games now than I was before.

I know several Clemson fans, and one thing they've told me they already do miss is Maryland versus Clemson in football. Nouveaux-ACC fans who have grown up in the FSU era don't realize this, but for many years, from the 1950s well into the 1980s, Maryland vs Clemson was the biggest rivalry in ACC football, often deciding the conference title.

As for Louisville, their football is, historically, almost nothing. The two Teddy B years, 2012-2013, constitute literally about half of all their historical achievements in football. Seriously, before 2012, there were maybe two seasons in Louisville history where it was worth anyone's time to go out of their way to watch Louisville play anyone in football, much less FSU or Clemson. So you must be a real recent Clemson fan. :)

Fair point...but you must admit that Louisville is very serious about winning under the direction of Tom Jurich and that fact that Louisville for the past Four years has averaged over 50K in attendance..

No question. Louisville seems to be 100% committed to make football into a truly big-time thing on a permanent basis. You guys are determined, as evidenced by the stadium investments and even re-hiring the tainted but talented Bobby Petrino. There is a palpable sense of determination to not take any steps back, to establish UofL as a football power.

I don't see that commitment at Maryland or even Rutgers, which had it 5-10 years ago but has seemingly quit on the notion. It's not there at Kentucky, either.

(12-26-2014 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 10:26 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Disagree. The big 12 lost FOUR members and were only able to backfill with two.

The acc lost a charter member, which is obviously a bad thing. But I will say this in terms of ratings - did I ever go out of my way to watch Maryland vs FSU or Clemson? Nope. Did I go out of my way to watch Louisville play those schools? You bet I did. Do I make a greater effort to watch Louisville in bball? You bet. I think it's fair to say that Louisville improves the acc in football and bball, which would also be a mitigating factor in losing a charter member. No slight intended toward Maryland or the b1g, just saying that, as a fan and alum, I'm more interested in the games now than I was before.

I know several Clemson fans, and one thing they've told me they already do miss is Maryland versus Clemson in football. Nouveaux-ACC fans who have grown up in the FSU era don't realize this, but for many years, from the 1950s well into the 1980s, Maryland vs Clemson was the biggest rivalry in ACC football, often deciding the conference title.

As for Louisville, their football is, historically, almost nothing. The two Teddy B years, 2012-2013, constitute literally about half of all their historical achievements in football. Seriously, before 2012, there were maybe two seasons in Louisville history where it was worth anyone's time to go out of their way to watch Louisville play anyone in football, much less FSU or Clemson. So you must be a real recent Clemson fan. :)

Since I have been watching college football (35 years) Louisville has been superior to Maryland. Maryland was decent in the early 80's with Essiason. They had a couple midpack teams in the 90's and 2000's. I cannot remember a single top 10 finish, and very few top 25 finishes. As you mentioned, Louisville had the Teddy years along with several top 10 teams in the 2000's. I also remember Louisville having some top 25 teams in the early 90's. I have no knowledge of either team before 1980.

Louisville had a top-10 team in 2006,when they beat Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl. Before then, it was C-USA and independent status. They had a top-25 team in 1990, the Schnellenberger Fiesta Bowl team. That was that.

Basically, before they joined the Big East in 2005, Louisville had played small-time, minor conference football their whole history. They didn't win a bowl game until 1990.

True. And prior to Schnellenberger around 1990, Louisville was no different than Memphis. UL has made a lot of strides since joining the BE, but they really weren't much prior to that. A solid CUSA school in the late 90s, but not much more.

UofL really took off under the first Petrino go around...finished his last three years in the Top 25 with a BCS Bowl win...Kragthorpe almost killed any momentum it is a testiment of the job Charlie Strong did and it amazing in a first year in a new league playing Freshmen QBs and without your Top 10 NFL Draft pick out for 7 games that UofL still won 9 Regular Season Games with a entire new Coaching Staff.

(12-26-2014 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 11:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 09:30 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 04:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big XII did okay too. WVU has won more BCS bowl games than Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Mizzou combined. TCU can match those schools total too.

Disagree. The big 12 lost FOUR members and were only able to backfill with two.

The acc lost a charter member, which is obviously a bad thing. But I will say this in terms of ratings - did I ever go out of my way to watch Maryland vs FSU or Clemson? Nope. Did I go out of my way to watch Louisville play those schools? You bet I did. Do I make a greater effort to watch Louisville in bball? You bet. I think it's fair to say that Louisville improves the acc in football and bball, which would also be a mitigating factor in losing a charter member. No slight intended toward Maryland or the b1g, just saying that, as a fan and alum, I'm more interested in the games now than I was before.

I know several Clemson fans, and one thing they've told me they already do miss is Maryland versus Clemson in football. Nouveaux-ACC fans who have grown up in the FSU era don't realize this, but for many years, from the 1950s well into the 1980s, Maryland vs Clemson was the biggest rivalry in ACC football, often deciding the conference title.

As for Louisville, their football is, historically, almost nothing. The two Teddy B years, 2012-2013, constitute literally about half of all their historical achievements in football. Seriously, before 2012, there were maybe two seasons in Louisville history where it was worth anyone's time to go out of their way to watch Louisville play anyone in football, much less FSU or Clemson. So you must be a real recent Clemson fan. :)

Fair point...but you must admit that Louisville is very serious about winning under the direction of Tom Jurich and that fact that Louisville for the past Four years has averaged over 50K in attendance..

No question. Louisville seems to be 100% committed to make football into a truly big-time thing on a permanent basis. You guys are determined, as evidenced by the stadium investments and even re-hiring the tainted but talented Bobby Petrino. There is a palpable sense of determination to not take any steps back, to establish UofL as a football power.

I don't see that commitment at Maryland or even Rutgers, which had it 5-10 years ago but has seemingly quit on the notion. It's not there at Kentucky, either.

Thanks....we will never be a Bama, Texas or Ohio State...always said the goal is to a program like a South Carolina-(SEC) or K-State-(Big XII)...

Winners:

Chris Fowler said "The SEC didn't add Texas A&M to increase it's football prowess, but to increase it's television footprint"
The SEC got what it wanted

"The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated"
Big XII. There were those who thought that the Big XII was done.
The 12 is still a very healthy conference; even with the CFP controversy

The same could be said of the ACC to a lesser extent with all of the rumors surrounding GT, VT, Clemson and FSU.
It made the right adds, lost only UMD, and was "enhanced" by the Notre Dame coup


Losers:

The MWC maintained.
The MAC, like the PAC 12 seems immune to it all.
CUSA enhanced it's television footprint and had some surprising football successes as well as potentially (although this year looks weak) making good mbb adds.
The SBC appears to not seem to care about BB, so the importance of the GaSo and App St adds cannot be minimized in football. Those two programs will rise to the top quickly and stay there. So, in the long run, a slight net gain for the SBC could be argued.

The real loser was the AAC
1. It lost it's autobid and subsequent P5 Status.
2. It was NOT even the best G5 (MWC was) in football. In fact, it could be argued that CUSA, with TWO FCS transitionals, ODU and UTSA, was just as good.
I don't see this changing. If anything the MWC will maintain and CUSA, and the SBC will likely get better.
3. The AAC is still potentially volatile as small changes above them could wreak havoc with membership.
While this would also trickle down, it would not devastate CUSA like the loss of Cincy, Memphis, and/or Uconn would to the American. In fact CUSA would likely absorb a single loss happily with no replacement.


The B1G will continue it's small but perceptible steady decline, but that is for another thread as it has nothing to do with realignment, but instead location.

(12-26-2014 12:15 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Winners
Chris Fowler said "The SEC didn't add Texas A&M to increase it's football prowess, but to increase it's television footprint"
SEC got what it wanted

"The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated"
Biog XII. There were those who thought that the Big XII was done.
The 12 is still a very healthy conference; even with the CFP controversy

The same could be said of the ACC to a lesser extent with all of the rumors surrounding GT, VT, Clemson and FSU, and the Notre Dame coup

The B1G will continue it's small but perceptible steady decline, but that is for another thread as it has nothing to do with realignment, but instead location.

Losers.

The MWC maintained.
The MAC, like the PAC 12 seems immune to it all.
CUSA enhanced it's television footprint and had some surprising football successes as well as potentially (although this year looks weak) making good mbb adds.
The SBC appears to not seem to care about BB, so the importance of the GaSo and App St adds cannot be minimized in football. Those two programs will rise to the top quickly and stay there. So, in the long run, a slight net gain for the SBC could be argued.

The real loser was the AAC
1. It lost it's autobid and subsequent P5 Status.
2. It was NOT even the best G5 (MWC was) in football. In fact, it could be argued that CUSA, with TWO FCS transitionals, ODU and UTSA, was just as good.
I don't see this changing. If anything the MWC will maintain and CUSA, and the SBC will likely get better.
3. The AAC is still potentially volatile as small changes above them could wreak havoc with membership.
While this would also trickle down, it would not devastate CUSA like the loss of Cincy, Memphis, and/or Uconn would to the American. In fact CUSA would likely absorb a single loss happily with no replacement.

The MWC really didn't lose...they are in no real danger of losing any member and under the new structure they are making more $$$...the AAC didn't lose so much as did UConn, USF and Cincinnati...it is basically C-USA and the old C-USA schools are making more $$$ then they did before with a better TV Deal.

(12-26-2014 12:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 12:15 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Winners
Chris Fowler said "The SEC didn't add Texas A&M to increase it's football prowess, but to increase it's television footprint"
SEC got what it wanted

"The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated"
Biog XII. There were those who thought that the Big XII was done.
The 12 is still a very healthy conference; even with the CFP controversy

The same could be said of the ACC to a lesser extent with all of the rumors surrounding GT, VT, Clemson and FSU, and the Notre Dame coup

The B1G will continue it's small but perceptible steady decline, but that is for another thread as it has nothing to do with realignment, but instead location.

Losers.

The MWC maintained.
The MAC, like the PAC 12 seems immune to it all.
CUSA enhanced it's television footprint and had some surprising football successes as well as potentially (although this year looks weak) making good mbb adds.
The SBC appears to not seem to care about BB, so the importance of the GaSo and App St adds cannot be minimized in football. Those two programs will rise to the top quickly and stay there. So, in the long run, a slight net gain for the SBC could be argued.

The real loser was the AAC
1. It lost it's autobid and subsequent P5 Status.
2. It was NOT even the best G5 (MWC was) in football. In fact, it could be argued that CUSA, with TWO FCS transitionals, ODU and UTSA, was just as good.
I don't see this changing. If anything the MWC will maintain and CUSA, and the SBC will likely get better.
3. The AAC is still potentially volatile as small changes above them could wreak havoc with membership.
While this would also trickle down, it would not devastate CUSA like the loss of Cincy, Memphis, and/or Uconn would to the American. In fact CUSA would likely absorb a single loss happily with no replacement.

The MWC really didn't lose...they are in no real danger of losing any member and under the new structure they are making more $$$.

I completely agree. I should not have listed the MWC under losers. Clerical dumb*** on my part.

(12-26-2014 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 12:09 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-26-2014 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 11:17 PM)Maize Wrote:  I kmow right...one poster calling Syracuse a Bottom Feeder-(won a share of the Football Title last year in the league) and a Historical Football program with National Titles...Heisman Winners and argubly having the Greatest Football Player of All Time as a Alum in Jim Brown.

Another poster somehow trying to say Utah and TCU-(Nothing against those two programs) were more deserving of P5 Status then Louisville...on the Field, Court, Fan Support and Finacially UofL takes a back seat to nobody...

In the 8 years AFTER Miami left the BE, Syracuse won 14 league games, 9 of which were in 2 of those 8 years. Last or next to last 6 out of 8 years. That's the definition of a bottom feeder. (I'm talking football, SU didn't sink in bb).

Their last year in the league they did win a share of the Conference Title...but they did suffer in the CRob years...

I never argued their history. But they had become a team a school like Rutgers would schedule for homecoming in the closing years of the BE.

How many years do you consider "closing years" for a league that was only around for 22 years? Just wondering because if you want to look at the years that Syracuse was losing then that would be from 2005-2009, five years. I would hardly call this period the closing years of the BE, If so, then the BE "closing years" would over 10 years. Most people would likely agree that 2010 would start the closing years of the BE. From 2010 to 2012, Syracuse's last year in the BE, Syracuse won 21 games. Hardly bottom feeder status.

If you want to look at the period from 2005- 2009, then yes SU was the definition of a "bottom feeder." No qualms from me. But from 2010-2012, You calling Syracuse a bottom feeder is ridiculous. Especially since your own favorite fb team Texas, only won 22 games (one more than SU) during this same period.

(12-25-2014 05:10 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Without using a formula, This is how I'd rank how bad each conference was hurt by the last shake up...

It is not how I would rank the strength of each conference compared to the others. So, don't think I'm claiming the MWC is better than the BIG 12, or claiming the MAC and C-USA are better than the AAC.

1. SEC- ESPN's Golden Boy
2. PAC- Rulers of the west
3. ACC- Punked the Big East
4. BIG10- has more pull than the Big 12
5. MWC- now the only G5 in the west
6. Big 12- the big P5 loser. SEC, PAC, and BIG10 all snatched parts of the Big 12. Plus, no championship game= no playoff spot
7. MAC- Stability, but still too regional to grow their brand.
8. C-USA- Raided by the AAC, and lost good bowls, but has improved their television coverage.
9. AAC- added some C-USA teams, but lost the big money, lost the big time status, and lost the Big East name
10. Sun Belt- Raided by C-USA. Unable to add from other FBS conferences, they had to dip into the FCS for all of their new teams.
11. WAC- football death.... R.I.P.

Pretty much sums its up. However, the AAC is didn't just raid some CUSA school but practically all of it to where the AAC is the CUSA of 3 years ago.