Again, congratulations on being the tallest midget.

(08-03-2017 10:44 AM)Bronco69 Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 12:51 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Not sure how much to read into this, but the AAC is blowing away the other G4's in this recruiting cycle. When looking at the rankings, if you include the AAC in the G's, then 8 out of the top 10 recruiting classes came from the AAC. What, if anything, do you make of this.

247 G4 + AAC rankings:

http://247sports.com/Season/2018-Footbal...amRankings

1. Cincinnati
2. USF
3. UConn (possibly suspect ranking)
4. Houston
5. UCF
6. SMU
7. ECU
8. Toledo
9. Temple
10. Western Michigan
10A. Navy (possibly 10th due to UConn's suspect ranking).

Rivals G4 + AAC rankings:

https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2018/...s/football

1a. Houston (29th nationally)
1b. USF (29th nationally)
3. SMU
4. Cincinnati
5. Temple
6. Arkansas St.
7. Navy
8. UCF
9. ECU
10. Toledo

Again, 8 of top 10 recruiting classes are in AAC, 9 of 11 if you include Memphis in Rivals.

Thoughts on this. Why is the AAC running circles around the G4 in recruiting and to a certain extent keeping up with mid level P's?

Recruiting stars talent does not equal performance.

Boise State has had 26 players drafted in the last 10 years. Of those, not one of them was a 4 or 5 star recruit. In fact, in 2012 Boise State had 5 NFL draft picks and 7 players from it's 2011 defensive line in NFL camps and, again, all were 2-3 star recruits.

During the height of Boise State's run (Chris Petersen era), Boise State never cracked the top 40 in recruiting but Petersen compiled an obscene record of 92-12 in 8 years. All the while taking whatever BCS/P5 scalps along the way that would actually schedule Boise State.

The AAC fans, for a conference that is 1-9 the last two years in bowls, are awfully myopic. How many Access Bowls has that "superior" conference made? I think its the same number as the MWC and the lowly MAC.

Lie. The AAC has won 4 bowl games the past 2 years, to include a win over an SEC team in Birmingham Bowl, and a Peach bowl win over Florida State.

I do admit the AAC bowl record last 2 years has been poor, but let's not lie about it.

Secondly, your statement about same number of Access Bowls is another extremely suspect statement, and you know it. It's a twisted statement made to make AAC look worse. Here's why (and you know this full well):

The AAC has been in existence 4 years. The first year the AAC had a BCS auto bid. UCF won the bid. But here's the thing you conveniently omit. UCF WOULD HAVE WON THE NON BCS/G5 BID ANYWAY, EVEN IF AAC DIDN'T HAVE AN AUTO BID. So in true reality, the AAC won or would have won whatever mechanism that was in place to allow the non auto access conferences a major bowl 2 out of 4 years of it's existence. You and others know this but continue to peddle other narratives that fit your agenda.

That's what I get for relying on a tweet. One last week said that AAC was 1-9 in bowls. My bad. So, let's look at the last 25 bowls then. Going back to 2013 (since you're using that last BCS year as a metric). AAC is 7 for 25 in bowls. Explain how this reality fits your agenda for a "superior" conference?

(08-03-2017 11:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The AAC fans, for a conference that is 1-9 the last two years in bowls, are awfully myopic. How many Access Bowls has that "superior" conference made? I think its the same number as the MWC and the lowly MAC.

Actually it kinda does. You realize that "top 40" would have likely placed Boise as the best recruiting in the non-power conferences. I'd also point out that the AAC isn't getting a bunch of 4-5 stars. The reality is these higher rated non-power school recruiting classes basically are made of highly rated 3-stars and an occasional higher rated kid. The biggest difference is the top non-power classes are deeper in in 3-stars with the occasion higher rated recruit rather than fewer 3-stars with a lot of lower rated kids mixed in.

Doesnt mean that some of those lower rated classes from other conferences wont end up being better---it does, however, mean that its more likely that most (but not necessarily all) of those higher rated AAC classes will probably develop into top non-power squads. Boise is actually a good example of what consistent recruiting near the top of the non-power conferences looks like.

Here is the BIG key---coaching. When you combine a G5 recruiting at the top of the non-power programs with top quality coaching---you get the TCU's, Utah's, Boise's, and W Michigans of the non-power world. The higher budgets in the AAC that have allowed the hiring of better overall quality of coaching top to bottom in the AAC than most other non-power conferences. Combining that coaching with the higher quality recruiting classes is a very potent concoction likely to continue to allow the AAC to significantly outperform the other non-power conferences.
[/quote]

Mostly correct. Boise State has been in the mid-50's to mid-60's most years I think 2010 was out best class at 42. We have been out-recruited back in the OLD MWC days by Utah, TCU, and BYU. Hell, Hawaii (w/June Jones) and Fresno usually had higher rated classes. But, you're correct that we were generally at a higher level than most of our competition. Star systems and recruiting services are all an eye of the beholder metric. NFL prospects may be better but that has it's own problems too.

It is all about coaching and coaching stability. As long as the AAC is a feeder conference for coaches to the P5 it is hard to establish any consistency. MWC has had a bunch of new coaches in the last three years. Boise State, Hawaii, San Joser, Fresno, Colorado St., Wyoming, Utah State, UNLV.... with that kind of turnover there is no consistency. At BSU we've had our coordinators leave to P5 schools. Our old DC (2015) was offered DC at UA for 3x the amount of money we were paying him. That's where inconsistency hurts too.

(08-03-2017 11:19 AM)Bronco69 Wrote:  That's what I get for relying on a tweet. One last week said that AAC was 1-9 in bowls. My bad. So, let's look at the last 25 bowls then. Going back to 2013 (since you're using that last BCS year as a metric). AAC is 7 for 25 in bowls. Explain how this reality fits your agenda for a "superior" conference?

Not sure where you get your figures from again, but going back to 2013, the AAC is 8-17 in bowls, to include 2 major bowl wins. If you exclude Rutgers and Louisville from 2013, then the record becomes 7-16.

Bowls are exhibitions. I am sure you have seen the AAC vs. G-5 conferences in the actual regular season the past two year which is something ridiculous like 22-2 with an over 90% winning percentage against the G-5. I just looked this up recently and it's true. Another fact conveniently omitted by the AAC naysayers.

Statistics can say whatever you want them to say, if you twist them enough.

(08-03-2017 11:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:19 AM)Bronco69 Wrote:  That's what I get for relying on a tweet. One last week said that AAC was 1-9 in bowls. My bad. So, let's look at the last 25 bowls then. Going back to 2013 (since you're using that last BCS year as a metric). AAC is 7 for 25 in bowls. Explain how this reality fits your agenda for a "superior" conference?

Not sure where you get your figures from again, but going back to 2013, the AAC is 8-17 in bowls, to include 2 major bowl wins. If you exclude Rutgers and Louisville from 2013, then the record becomes 7-16.

Bowls are exhibitions. I am sure you have seen the AAC vs. G-5 conferences in the actual regular season the past two year which is something ridiculous like 22-2 with an over 90% winning percentage against the G-5. I just looked this up recently and it's true. Another fact conveniently omitted by the AAC naysayers.

Statistics can say whatever you want them to say, if you twist them enough.

American Athletic Conference combined regular season record vs opponents by conference 2015-16

ACC: 8-8
Big 12: 3-5
Big Ten: 2-5
ND: 1-2
Pac-12: 0-1
SEC: 2-5
P5 total: 16-26

C-USA: 6-1
Non-ND FBS Ind: 4-6 (incl. 0-4 vs BYU)
MAC: 6-0
MWC: 4-1
Sun Belt: 4-0
G5 (-AAC) total: 24-8

Given the small sample size, I'm not sure this tells you a whole lot, though.

(08-03-2017 01:51 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:19 AM)Bronco69 Wrote:  That's what I get for relying on a tweet. One last week said that AAC was 1-9 in bowls. My bad. So, let's look at the last 25 bowls then. Going back to 2013 (since you're using that last BCS year as a metric). AAC is 7 for 25 in bowls. Explain how this reality fits your agenda for a "superior" conference?

Not sure where you get your figures from again, but going back to 2013, the AAC is 8-17 in bowls, to include 2 major bowl wins. If you exclude Rutgers and Louisville from 2013, then the record becomes 7-16.

Bowls are exhibitions. I am sure you have seen the AAC vs. G-5 conferences in the actual regular season the past two year which is something ridiculous like 22-2 with an over 90% winning percentage against the G-5. I just looked this up recently and it's true. Another fact conveniently omitted by the AAC naysayers.

Statistics can say whatever you want them to say, if you twist them enough.

American Athletic Conference combined regular season record vs opponents by conference 2015-16

ACC: 8-8
Big 12: 3-5
Big Ten: 2-5
ND: 1-2
Pac-12: 0-1
SEC: 2-5
P5 total: 16-26

C-USA: 6-1
Non-ND FBS Ind: 4-6 (incl. 0-4 vs BYU)
MAC: 6-0
MWC: 4-1
Sun Belt: 4-0
G5 (-AAC) total: 24-8

Given the small sample size, I'm not sure this tells you a whole lot, though.

OK, but you are including BYU. I didn't, since they are not in a "G" conference. I may or may not have included Army, can't remember when I looked at it a few days ago. At the very least, it's 24-4, without BYU (non G5 conf. member), which is pretty good, actually VERY good.

(08-03-2017 11:07 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, congratulations on being the tallest midget.

Isn't nice for fans like me who have had season tickets to cincy since I was about 10 and then graduated from Ohio State University. Tallest giant and midget (According to you). Ahhh well we know cincy isn't a midget... G4 gonna G4 and P6 gonna P6.

(08-03-2017 11:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:19 AM)Bronco69 Wrote:  That's what I get for relying on a tweet. One last week said that AAC was 1-9 in bowls. My bad. So, let's look at the last 25 bowls then. Going back to 2013 (since you're using that last BCS year as a metric). AAC is 7 for 25 in bowls. Explain how this reality fits your agenda for a "superior" conference?

Not sure where you get your figures from again, but going back to 2013, the AAC is 8-17 in bowls, to include 2 major bowl wins. If you exclude Rutgers and Louisville from 2013, then the record becomes 7-16.

Bowls are exhibitions. I am sure you have seen the AAC vs. G-5 conferences in the actual regular season the past two year which is something ridiculous like 22-2 with an over 90% winning percentage against the G-5. I just looked this up recently and it's true. Another fact conveniently omitted by the AAC naysayers.

Statistics can say whatever you want them to say, if you twist them enough.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con...bowls.html
Looks pretty accurate source to me

Here's the tweet
https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/statu...2286658560
tweet date 26 July
Just re-read that tweet, even more damning 1-8 vs G5 teams in bowls. So too bad for your incorrect stat above

(08-03-2017 03:16 PM)Bronco69 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:19 AM)Bronco69 Wrote:  That's what I get for relying on a tweet. One last week said that AAC was 1-9 in bowls. My bad. So, let's look at the last 25 bowls then. Going back to 2013 (since you're using that last BCS year as a metric). AAC is 7 for 25 in bowls. Explain how this reality fits your agenda for a "superior" conference?

Not sure where you get your figures from again, but going back to 2013, the AAC is 8-17 in bowls, to include 2 major bowl wins. If you exclude Rutgers and Louisville from 2013, then the record becomes 7-16.

Bowls are exhibitions. I am sure you have seen the AAC vs. G-5 conferences in the actual regular season the past two year which is something ridiculous like 22-2 with an over 90% winning percentage against the G-5. I just looked this up recently and it's true. Another fact conveniently omitted by the AAC naysayers.

Statistics can say whatever you want them to say, if you twist them enough.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con...bowls.html
Looks pretty accurate source to me

Here's the tweet
https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/statu...2286658560
tweet date 26 July
Just re-read that tweet, even more damning 1-8 vs G5 teams in bowls. So too bad for your incorrect stat above

Exactly what I just said. 8-17 in bowls, with 2 major bowl wins.

And the AAC is playing around .900 ball against the G5 conferences in the regular season (depending on if you include Army or BYU a little less). I'm to lazy to post all the results, but bottom line, AAC over 20 wins last couple years verses only 2 or 3 losses against the G5. Now that is impressive, anyway you slice it, and virtually impossible to do.

So it seems to me like the use of "P6" and "G4", which are objectively unrepresentative of reality, is simply a way for AAC fans to troll all other FBS fans. This may be obvious to many, but this particular matter is relatively new to me, so I took some time to get a good handle on the situation. The former term demeans the P5 conferences by treating them as if they were on par with the AAC, while the latter term further demeans the other G5 conferences by strongly exaggerating the size of the gap (in football strength, talent, success, revenue, etc.) between the AAC and the "G4" as compared to the much larger gap between the P5 and the AAC. As such, I would venture that those who advocate this terminology are either trolls, delusional, or both. In any case, indulging these individuals is likely not worth anyone's time and may be actually counterproductive, so I would recommend not responding to those who seriously use "P6" and/or "G4" in discussion.

(08-03-2017 04:44 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 03:16 PM)Bronco69 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:40 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:19 AM)Bronco69 Wrote:  That's what I get for relying on a tweet. One last week said that AAC was 1-9 in bowls. My bad. So, let's look at the last 25 bowls then. Going back to 2013 (since you're using that last BCS year as a metric). AAC is 7 for 25 in bowls. Explain how this reality fits your agenda for a "superior" conference?

Not sure where you get your figures from again, but going back to 2013, the AAC is 8-17 in bowls, to include 2 major bowl wins. If you exclude Rutgers and Louisville from 2013, then the record becomes 7-16.

Bowls are exhibitions. I am sure you have seen the AAC vs. G-5 conferences in the actual regular season the past two year which is something ridiculous like 22-2 with an over 90% winning percentage against the G-5. I just looked this up recently and it's true. Another fact conveniently omitted by the AAC naysayers.

Statistics can say whatever you want them to say, if you twist them enough.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con...bowls.html
Looks pretty accurate source to me

Here's the tweet
https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/statu...2286658560
tweet date 26 July
Just re-read that tweet, even more damning 1-8 vs G5 teams in bowls. So too bad for your incorrect stat above

Exactly what I just said. 8-17 in bowls, with 2 major bowl wins.

And the AAC is playing around .900 ball against the G5 conferences in the regular season (depending on if you include Army or BYU a little less). I'm to lazy to post all the results, but bottom line, AAC over 20 wins last couple years verses only 2 or 3 losses against the G5. Now that is impressive, anyway you slice it, and virtually impossible to do.

How about we slice it with the truth.

2013
3-2 vs CUSA
0-1 vs MW
4-1 vs MAC
1-1 vs SB

2014
3-3 vs CUSA
1-2 vs MW
2-0 vs MAC
0-1 vs SB

2015
1-3 vs CUSA
2-1 vs MW
3-1 vs MAC
2-0 vs SB

2016
3-2 vs CUSA
2-2 vs MW
4-0 vs MAC
2-1 vs SB

Overall
10-10 vs CUSA
5-5 vs MW
13-2 vs MAC
5-3 vs SB
For a grand total of 33-20 vs G5 opponents.