(09-07-2015 03:10 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 12:14 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Tulane should've dropped their program. Then the AAC wouldn't be stuck with them.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Then who would you be "stuck with"? Southern Miss? Marshall? UTEP? Do not make me laugh, those schools don't bring the markets or the academics. They barely have fan support and offer nothing but embarrassment to their so called "conference". Before you talk about how they won a few football games a million years ago, it is a fact that the keys to success in college athletics are not based on wins. If they were then why is Boise St. not in the Big 12? Why is Fresno not in the Pac 12? Why is Southern Miss not in the AAC? It is because it is about markets, academics, having an athletic dept with a pulse. You AAC fans do not realize just how lucky you are to have Tulane in your conference, we make every school seem academically superior just by association. We bring the market of New Orleans which is one of the greatest cities in the world and we can claim parts of South Mississippi since nobody is watching Southern Miss. We are the total package and it is time we get the respect we deserve.

Respect you deserve?

From a 2014 Grantland article:

Quote:From 1952 to 2011, Tulane’s winning percentage (.353) ranked 95th out of 98 schools that competed at the highest level over that entire span, ahead of only Northwestern, New Mexico State, and Vanderbilt.

No one questions the academic standing of Tulane, nor do I have anything against New Orleans -- I love it -- but most of New Orleans doesn't care about Tulane sports. I have been hopeful that a great coach like Curtis Johnson would be able to lift the Green Wave to even mediocrity, but it hasn't happened yet.

Three years of sucking is bad for USM, but juxtaposed against the history of Tulane football since the 50's, it's just a blip. I wish nothing but good things for Tulane, but they just don't seem to have it in them to do what's necessary to build a competitive program other than making one great coaching hire.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act...totals.php

Tulane has gone .500 or better only 8 times since the D1 split in 1978. They've got a stellar 36% win % in that time span.

(09-07-2015 03:10 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 12:14 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Tulane should've dropped their program. Then the AAC wouldn't be stuck with them.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Then who would you be "stuck with"? Southern Miss? Marshall? UTEP? Do not make me laugh, those schools don't bring the markets or the academics. They barely have fan support and offer nothing but embarrassment to their so called "conference". Before you talk about how they won a few football games a million years ago, it is a fact that the keys to success in college athletics are not based on wins. If they were then why is Boise St. not in the Big 12? Why is Fresno not in the Pac 12? Why is Southern Miss not in the AAC? It is because it is about markets, academics, having an athletic dept with a pulse. You AAC fans do not realize just how lucky you are to have Tulane in your conference, we make every school seem academically superior just by association. We bring the market of New Orleans which is one of the greatest cities in the world and we can claim parts of South Mississippi since nobody is watching Southern Miss. We are the total package and it is time we get the respect we deserve.

"UTEP no fan support" UTEP vs Tulane in fan support: yulman vs an average UTEP crowd in the 50k plus Sun Bowl...bawhahahahahs. Don Haskins vs the 500 Tulane fans at your little gym....bawhahahahaha. You are a young troll who knows nothing about college sports son. The day Tulane gets an invite to the Big 12 is the day Texas leaves with everyone else who's decent. They wouldn't be caught dead with you guys. Ick...

(09-02-2015 10:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Saw this on Ivan Maisel's column today:
2. Mississippi State and Southern Mississippi used to exist on the same plane. When they played the last of 15 consecutive seasons, in 1989, the Golden Eagles led the series 14-12-1. Davis-Wade Stadium in Starkville seated 40,656. M.M. Roberts Stadium in Hattiesburg seated 33,000. Three years later, the SEC expanded and began revving its economic engine. The Bulldogs have expanded Davis-Wade four times and it now seats 61,337. The Eagles' stadium seats 36,000. Last year, their first game in 25 years, Mississippi State won, 49-0.

Just amazing.

I remember Southern Miss beating Auburn and Alabama the same year on the road.

(09-08-2015 12:38 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 10:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Saw this on Ivan Maisel's column today:
2. Mississippi State and Southern Mississippi used to exist on the same plane. When they played the last of 15 consecutive seasons, in 1989, the Golden Eagles led the series 14-12-1. Davis-Wade Stadium in Starkville seated 40,656. M.M. Roberts Stadium in Hattiesburg seated 33,000. Three years later, the SEC expanded and began revving its economic engine. The Bulldogs have expanded Davis-Wade four times and it now seats 61,337. The Eagles' stadium seats 36,000. Last year, their first game in 25 years, Mississippi State won, 49-0.

Just amazing.

I remember Southern Miss beating Auburn and Alabama the same year on the road.

In two years we beat bama, auburn, va tech and florida state all on the road.

It's sad what has happened to USM. They used to be a very well respected 'almost SEC' type squad. They beat us several times, and were a respected opponent for just about every SEC team they played, and other conferences as well.

Today, it needs some work.

(09-08-2015 01:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's sad what has happened to USM. They used to be a very well respected 'almost SEC' type squad. They beat us several times, and were a respected opponent for just about every SEC team they played, and other conferences as well.

Today, it needs some work.

It looks like we took a big step in the right direction.

(09-03-2015 02:50 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 11:29 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

The delusion is yours my friend. USM is 23- 7 all time against Tulane. They split their first eight meetings, starting in 1977, so USM has held a 19-3 edge since. USM didn't just "get lucky" every now and then; they made a habit of beating bigger programs. I'm not suggesting they had the upperhand on a regular basis, but they did pull the upset frequently. Just in the last 25 years or so. they beat Auburn AND Alabama in 1990, then Auburn again in '91. USM beat LSU in '94, Georgia in '96 and Alabama again in 2000. And it wasn't just the SEC schools -- they beat Nebraska in 2004, Illinois (when they were pretty good) in 1997 and again in 2002 and Pitt in 1997 (41-7 in the Liberty Bowl).

USM against current or former AAC/CUSA/Metro schools
UCF 6-2
Cincinnati 7-8 (always gave USM fits)
ECU 27-12
Florida State 8-13-1
Houston 9-5
Louisville 18-11-1
Memphis 40-22-1
SMU 3-1
USF 3-1
Virginia Tech 4-5

The only reason Tulane and Memphis looked bad by association with USM was because of how often they were being beaten by them. Oh yeah, you can count the Green Wave's winning records in the last 35 years on one hand. Before these last three years, you had to go back to 1972 to fill one hand with losing seasons for USM.

(drops mic)

Haha then it becomes even more funny that after all of your "accomplishments" and after all of our "failures", we still moved up to a much much better conference then you. We are higher on the totem pole, much more respected, on the short list for the Big 12, nationally viewed as better then Southern Miss. Meanwhile Southern Miss is a joke who plays in a joke conference and will be lucky to be in FBS five years from now. Ask anybody in the country who has a better football program Tulane or Southern Miss and 99.9 percent will say Tulane. We have the market and the academics and the money. Your wins got you in a glorified sunbelt while our accomplishments got us just one invite away from the big time. Stings don't it?

Hmmm....the playoff money provided to the 5 non cartel conferences is divided based on a number of things...one is a percentage of the money that is divided equally among the conferences while the rest is divided proportionally based on the on-field performance of the schools (head to head between the conferences and the conference that provides the entrant to the money bowls).

I'm left wondering why C-USA received a larger payout than did the AAC if the AAC is such a better conference? Please explain. Yes, I'll grant you there are better "names" in the AAC but obviously the actual on field performance was better in C-USA. On the other hand, those "names" are obviously not "big" enough for a cartel conference. Go figure.

(09-08-2015 04:59 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:50 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 11:29 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

The delusion is yours my friend. USM is 23- 7 all time against Tulane. They split their first eight meetings, starting in 1977, so USM has held a 19-3 edge since. USM didn't just "get lucky" every now and then; they made a habit of beating bigger programs. I'm not suggesting they had the upperhand on a regular basis, but they did pull the upset frequently. Just in the last 25 years or so. they beat Auburn AND Alabama in 1990, then Auburn again in '91. USM beat LSU in '94, Georgia in '96 and Alabama again in 2000. And it wasn't just the SEC schools -- they beat Nebraska in 2004, Illinois (when they were pretty good) in 1997 and again in 2002 and Pitt in 1997 (41-7 in the Liberty Bowl).

USM against current or former AAC/CUSA/Metro schools
UCF 6-2
Cincinnati 7-8 (always gave USM fits)
ECU 27-12
Florida State 8-13-1
Houston 9-5
Louisville 18-11-1
Memphis 40-22-1
SMU 3-1
USF 3-1
Virginia Tech 4-5

The only reason Tulane and Memphis looked bad by association with USM was because of how often they were being beaten by them. Oh yeah, you can count the Green Wave's winning records in the last 35 years on one hand. Before these last three years, you had to go back to 1972 to fill one hand with losing seasons for USM.

(drops mic)

Haha then it becomes even more funny that after all of your "accomplishments" and after all of our "failures", we still moved up to a much much better conference then you. We are higher on the totem pole, much more respected, on the short list for the Big 12, nationally viewed as better then Southern Miss. Meanwhile Southern Miss is a joke who plays in a joke conference and will be lucky to be in FBS five years from now. Ask anybody in the country who has a better football program Tulane or Southern Miss and 99.9 percent will say Tulane. We have the market and the academics and the money. Your wins got you in a glorified sunbelt while our accomplishments got us just one invite away from the big time. Stings don't it?

Hmmm....the playoff money provided to the 5 non cartel conferences is divided based on a number of things...one is a percentage of the money that is divided equally among the conferences while the rest is divided proportionally based on the on-field performance of the schools (head to head between the conferences and the conference that provides the entrant to the money bowls).

I'm left wondering why C-USA received a larger payout than did the AAC if the AAC is such a better conference? Please explain. Yes, I'll grant you there are better "names" in the AAC but obviously the actual on field performance was better in C-USA. On the other hand, those "names" are obviously not "big" enough for a cartel conference. Go figure.

C-USA is a better league. On field performance has proven that

(09-03-2015 08:15 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:47 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

I'd trade Tulane for USM in a heartbeat if I could.

Presidents at SMU, Tulsa and Navy would not.

Nor UCONN. Probably not Temple either.

(09-08-2015 05:09 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 04:59 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:50 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 11:29 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

The delusion is yours my friend. USM is 23- 7 all time against Tulane. They split their first eight meetings, starting in 1977, so USM has held a 19-3 edge since. USM didn't just "get lucky" every now and then; they made a habit of beating bigger programs. I'm not suggesting they had the upperhand on a regular basis, but they did pull the upset frequently. Just in the last 25 years or so. they beat Auburn AND Alabama in 1990, then Auburn again in '91. USM beat LSU in '94, Georgia in '96 and Alabama again in 2000. And it wasn't just the SEC schools -- they beat Nebraska in 2004, Illinois (when they were pretty good) in 1997 and again in 2002 and Pitt in 1997 (41-7 in the Liberty Bowl).

USM against current or former AAC/CUSA/Metro schools
UCF 6-2
Cincinnati 7-8 (always gave USM fits)
ECU 27-12
Florida State 8-13-1
Houston 9-5
Louisville 18-11-1
Memphis 40-22-1
SMU 3-1
USF 3-1
Virginia Tech 4-5

The only reason Tulane and Memphis looked bad by association with USM was because of how often they were being beaten by them. Oh yeah, you can count the Green Wave's winning records in the last 35 years on one hand. Before these last three years, you had to go back to 1972 to fill one hand with losing seasons for USM.

(drops mic)

Haha then it becomes even more funny that after all of your "accomplishments" and after all of our "failures", we still moved up to a much much better conference then you. We are higher on the totem pole, much more respected, on the short list for the Big 12, nationally viewed as better then Southern Miss. Meanwhile Southern Miss is a joke who plays in a joke conference and will be lucky to be in FBS five years from now. Ask anybody in the country who has a better football program Tulane or Southern Miss and 99.9 percent will say Tulane. We have the market and the academics and the money. Your wins got you in a glorified sunbelt while our accomplishments got us just one invite away from the big time. Stings don't it?

Hmmm....the playoff money provided to the 5 non cartel conferences is divided based on a number of things...one is a percentage of the money that is divided equally among the conferences while the rest is divided proportionally based on the on-field performance of the schools (head to head between the conferences and the conference that provides the entrant to the money bowls).

I'm left wondering why C-USA received a larger payout than did the AAC if the AAC is such a better conference? Please explain. Yes, I'll grant you there are better "names" in the AAC but obviously the actual on field performance was better in C-USA. On the other hand, those "names" are obviously not "big" enough for a cartel conference. Go figure.

C-USA is a better league. On field performance has proven that

On field performance has nothing to do with it, it is about markets, tv contracts, brand recognition. C-USA is not even in the same universe as the AAC in that regard. Western Kentucky beat Vanderbilt right? That does not mean they are a better program, is C-USA on par with the SEC because of that on field performance? Absolutely not, it is not even close. The AAC took the best programs in the nation not in the P5, they did this for a reason. These 12 schools are the best of the G5 schools period, nobody else not named Boise can even match up with the schools in this conference.

(09-08-2015 05:51 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  On field performance has nothing to do with it, it is about markets, tv contracts, brand recognition. C-USA is not even in the same universe as the AAC in that regard. Western Kentucky beat Vanderbilt right? That does not mean they are a better program, is C-USA on par with the SEC because of that on field performance? Absolutely not, it is not even close. The AAC took the best programs in the nation not in the P5, they did this for a reason. These 12 schools are the best of the G5 schools period, nobody else not named Boise can even match up with the schools in this conference.

I agree with your main point, but the AAC missed out on Boise and SDSU.

It would be so nice to see Boise St., San Diego St., Air Force, and Colorado St. in the AAC!

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

USM 23
Tulane 7

That's not a game score, that's the series record.

You fairly new Green Wave fans are a complete trip.

We might have a new version of Savacool

(09-08-2015 06:06 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  We might have a new version of Savacool

This guy is hysterical. It has to be a gag, can someone really be this delusional?

(09-02-2015 08:55 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

They absolutely would be in the AAC

Really? If 0-12 kept us out of the AAC I may puke.

I was excited to see Southern Miss hold their own against Miss State in the first half. USM has gone through a very dark period. It looks like there are signs of life and hope for their fans.

(09-08-2015 05:09 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 08:15 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:47 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

I'd trade Tulane for USM in a heartbeat if I could.

Presidents at SMU, Tulsa and Navy would not.

Nor UCONN. Probably not Temple either.

First, this reply not for the purpose of attacking anyone else's academics. Its sole purpose is to educate those of you who seem to stereotype every school whose tuition for four years doesn't require a bond issue by the student and their parents. You should so a little homework before you talk.

The USM School of Polymer Engineering and High Performance Materials (formerly the Polymer Science) is ranked as one of the three best in the US (BTW the other two are Cal Tech and MIT) and one of the 5 best in the world (the other two are in France and Germany).

The USM School of Construction Engineering Technology is ranked as one of the ten best in the US.

The School of Fine Arts is one of only a few in the US that is accredited in every one of the fine arts.

The Accounting program has been considered one of the premier programs in the South for over 40 years.

Dr. Neil McMillen, of the history department, is considered one of the preeminent scholars on the Civil Rights movement and the modern south (if you are interested in that subject read any one of his many award winning books on the subject) and Dr. Weist is considered one of the preeminent scholars on the Vietnam war and often a consultant to the History Channel and other productions for documentaries on that subject.

And that is just off the top of my head. No, it will never be considered to be equal to some others because of financial constraints. But objective evaluations of the USM by those who are not so arrogant and who do not run programs where the hardest task during your four years is gaining admission, are much better than those posted here. Actually, they would be considered similar to ECU, Memphis, USF and UCF, all of whom I respect.

But I guess those high priced educations did not teach you how to research before you press "Post."

(09-08-2015 07:56 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 08:55 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

They absolutely would be in the AAC

Really? If 0-12 kept us out of the AAC I may puke.

UCF pushed for Tulane. Blame them and the Catholics who only see markets.

(09-02-2015 05:07 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Please, I do not get the love affair with Southern Miss. Every team gets lucky and wins a few games over the bigger schools. Southern Miss has been one of the worst programs in the country for years now. Their fans always say if they did not go 0-12 they would be in the AAC and that is absolute delusion. They should not even be an FBS school bottom line. No market, no academics, no money, good riddance. They make schools like Tulane or Memphis look bad for even being associated with them for all those years. Thank goodness we passed them by years ago. Ivan Maisel is dead wrong, those two schools never existed on the same plane. It is not even on the same planet.

It must suck beyond understanding to have to do your best pumping up the AAC when you were a charter member of the SEC. I guess not all the heads are 'eggs' in your fine and esteemed university.