(09-03-2018 02:15 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 01:46 PM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 01:08 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 12:50 PM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  Wow. Incredibly dubious statement to make when the conference is 1-2 versus fellow G5, and 3-2 versus FCS, but I will agree that it is early, and it makes more sense to have this conversation after September is over.

I also agree that Navy is probably better than they looked, as is Temple, and Tulane. Alas, they play the games for a reason. If you are going to use your logic, you basically can never be proven wrong.

Great first weekend. I am so happy CFB is here.

there is 1 p5 win in the entire g5..its in the aac...i also just checked early lines...the aac is favored to win 4 more...
the mwc isnt favored in a single game vs a p5 ..not one

and wasnt san jose just blownout by a fcs??? atleast our loses came down to the wire

I am confused. Nothing you said here changes the current records.

SJSU is garbage. Agreed. I think they lost by one TD, but I don't care to look. They are horrible.

You have teams that are favored? Ok, cool. Let's talk after the games. I think Houston and USF should be favored, since they are at Home, and the games are winnable.

Are you now saying that only games against P5 teams matter? I thought you have been touting your G5 record as evidence of your superiority over the past few years?

Look, it is early. Agreed on that. But it was a bad weekend for the AAC. SMU was blown out, as was Hawaii. Cinci looks strong, and I think UCF/Memphis are top 25 teams.

i have never bragged about our record vs the g5...no one cares about how you do vs the g5...
i have on the other hand used our record vs the g5, to counter the bowl record argument. (c-usa: we 3-1 in our bowls vs aac, we are superior...me: okay, you are also like 10-3 vs us overall. random numbers, just an example)

i have actually never used g5 record as a reason for p6...as far as national importance wins vs p5 is all that matters...

i regularly say this..the aac has always been a far deeper league than the mwc, its not close, but the national media doesnt care..they only care about the top..when boise is great they debate the aac vs mwc.....when boise is bad the aac by a landslide
-- i have spoken how that could be used to our advantage this year..the pac12 is a far deeper (better) league than the aac...but there is a legitimate chance we will have multiple aac teams higher than their best...if so the p6 debate will really be in full

Good, we agree. This is what I have been saying to you for two years. people only care about the top of the conference, this the "depth"'of the AAC the past few years has never mattered. Now,'that depth does not appear to exist this year, so it matters even less.

Enjoy the games my friend. They matter.

(09-03-2018 05:02 PM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  Good, we agree. This is what I have been saying to you for two years. people only care about the top of the conference, this the "depth"'of the AAC the past few years has never mattered. Now,'that depth does not appear to exist this year, so it matters even less.

Enjoy the games my friend. They matter.

woah, woah... i didnt say they never mattered...they definitely matter...the depth is what pushs the top to be actually good..depth insures replacements when a top team is down.

coming out of the aac as the champion meant you are actually good. coming out as the g5 champ out of anyone other conference meant you werent as bad as the others..which is why we have won all our access bowls....and no one not named boise has outside of the aac

i just said "for national perception" and the p6 movement, how good your top is is all that "the national media" cares about..it matter every where else...including deciding who gets the NY6

also the aac is deeper than the mwc even this year, and its not close....as usual your bias is blind you

any aac that lost isnt good..but you are counting teams who had blowout loses in the mwc as part of the mwc depth..because you still see them as good..

aka your team..sdsu

tulane took a projected top 6 acc team in ot...and honestly should have won .. you added them to the not good aac list (and actually mocked me in the mwc forum for saying they could still end up good)

unlv loses by over 20 to USC you added them to the mwc depth in the mwc forum...utah state lost you are adding them to the mwc depth....

(09-03-2018 11:23 AM)pesik Wrote:  Split championships are the worst....

I’ll be honest It bothers me.. all 3 teams use the split title to boost they’re resume like they are the only one that won it that year.

A lot more aac teams would have more titles if we could split it... UCF brags about their 3 titles to everyone else having one ..like one of them wasn’t split
I’m sorry, it just my opinion, you can have a different one.. but split titles are worth less

If a conference has a winner take all championship for 3 years, and 1 team takes it all those 3 years, then the conference decides to have split titles , and for the next 3 years, 3 other different teams win the title on a split every year ..(meaning 4 teams have 3 titles)..I’m sorry but the team with the solo titles isn’t equal to the splits..their’s is valued more

OK...if no one can claim a title in the split year...then we have four years of AAC history with the following titles:

UCF: 2
Houston : 1
Temple: 1

The Knights still look pretty good in that scenario.

(09-03-2018 10:16 AM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 07:01 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-02-2018 09:05 PM)TigerSeth Wrote:  Looks like Memphis, UCF, Cincy, and Houston will have to carry the load as usual. Shame on ECU and Temple. Uconn is crap too.

You were UCONN/ECU Football just 5 years ago. LOL.

Incorrect! We were worse.

Dang! Beat me to it! LOL

I am very proud of where we are and where we came from. But really, we have had two incredible coaching hires in a row that have led to 5 years of excellent football. It's not like we've become a mainstay yet. I hope so, but ask Cincy and others what one or two bad coaching hires can do.

TM

(09-03-2018 01:28 PM)nastar36 Wrote:  Have you been living under a rock?
With 5 years to look back on. It's easy to see the top teams.

Average conference wins per season
Houston 5.4
UCF 5.4
Memphis 5.0
USF 4.8
Temple 4.6

Throwing opinions out the window and looking solely at the facts.
Houston, Ucf, and Memphis represent the top 25% of this conference to date.

Navy only has 3 years in the conference, but is averaging 6 wins per year. I'd say they are top 25% of the conference with Houston and UCF.

(09-03-2018 05:28 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:02 PM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  Good, we agree. This is what I have been saying to you for two years. people only care about the top of the conference, this the "depth"'of the AAC the past few years has never mattered. Now,'that depth does not appear to exist this year, so it matters even less.

Enjoy the games my friend. They matter.

woah, woah... i didnt say they never mattered...they definitely matter...the depth is what pushs the top to be actually good..depth insures replacements when a top team is down.

coming out of the aac as the champion meant you are actually good. coming out as the g5 champ out of anyone other conference meant you werent as bad as the others..which is why we have won all our access bowls....and no one not named boise has outside of the aac

i just said "for national perception" and the p6 movement, how good your top is is all that "the national media" cares about..it matter every where else...including deciding who gets the NY6

also the aac is deeper than the mwc even this year, and its not close....as usual your bias is blind you

any aac that lost isnt good..but you are counting teams who had blowout loses in the mwc as part of the mwc depth..because you still see them as good..

aka your team..sdsu

tulane took a projected top 6 acc team in ot...and honestly should have won .. you added them to the not good aac list (and actually mocked me in the mwc forum for saying they could still end up good)

unlv loses by over 20 to USC you added them to the mwc depth in the mwc forum...utah state lost you are adding them to the mwc depth....

Don't go down the rabbit hole.

(09-03-2018 05:30 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 11:23 AM)pesik Wrote:  Split championships are the worst....

I’ll be honest It bothers me.. all 3 teams use the split title to boost they’re resume like they are the only one that won it that year.

A lot more aac teams would have more titles if we could split it... UCF brags about their 3 titles to everyone else having one ..like one of them wasn’t split
I’m sorry, it just my opinion, you can have a different one.. but split titles are worth less

If a conference has a winner take all championship for 3 years, and 1 team takes it all those 3 years, then the conference decides to have split titles , and for the next 3 years, 3 other different teams win the title on a split every year ..(meaning 4 teams have 3 titles)..I’m sorry but the team with the solo titles isn’t equal to the splits..their’s is valued more

OK...if no one can claim a title in the split year...then we have four years of AAC history with the following titles:

UCF: 2
Houston : 1
Temple: 1

The Knights still look pretty good in that scenario.

"If no one can claim..."

Says who? This guy? Bull5h1t. I claim it. As I said earlier, UCF didn't have to face a AAC team with a record of 7-1 like we did, and the team we did face with that record we beat.

What a terrible time for ECU to hit bottom.

Will ECU ever be "ECU" again?

(09-03-2018 10:01 PM)MemTiger90 Wrote:  Will ECU ever be "ECU" again?

The answer is yes. They're building the facilities, have the rabid fanbase, and still manage to draw good P5 teams at home (WVU, VT, UNC, etc.). Not all programs have this going for them, and these are qualities that top talent want to play in.

If ECU wants to capitalize off of this, they need to do what the other successful programs in this conference do - invest heavily in good coaching talent, and remove coaches that don't cut it.

We'll see what ECU does at the end of the season.

(09-03-2018 05:28 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:02 PM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  Good, we agree. This is what I have been saying to you for two years. people only care about the top of the conference, this the "depth"'of the AAC the past few years has never mattered. Now,'that depth does not appear to exist this year, so it matters even less.

Enjoy the games my friend. They matter.

woah, woah... i didnt say they never mattered...they definitely matter...the depth is what pushs the top to be actually good..depth insures replacements when a top team is down.

coming out of the aac as the champion meant you are actually good. coming out as the g5 champ out of anyone other conference meant you werent as bad as the others..which is why we have won all our access bowls....and no one not named boise has outside of the aac

i just said "for national perception" and the p6 movement, how good your top is is all that "the national media" cares about..it matter every where else...including deciding who gets the NY6

also the aac is deeper than the mwc even this year, and its not close....as usual your bias is blind you

any aac that lost isnt good..but you are counting teams who had blowout loses in the mwc as part of the mwc depth..because you still see them as good..

aka your team..sdsu

tulane took a projected top 6 acc team in ot...and honestly should have won .. you added them to the not good aac list (and actually mocked me in the mwc forum for saying they could still end up good)

unlv loses by over 20 to USC you added them to the mwc depth in the mwc forum...utah state lost you are adding them to the mwc depth....

I always enjoy being called biased by the guy who is speaking in absolutes. Could you point to evidence that supports your claim that the AAC is deep this year?

(09-03-2018 08:09 AM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  One week of football does not effect the TV contract positively or negatively. As I have said for years on this board, it is all cyclical. I am surprised people are surprised here. After years of heavy turnover at the coaching position, the AAC was bound to take a step or two back.

It is not about wins n losses, it is about TV ratings. UCF/UCONN got very good ratings. Will have to wait n see on rest. The Conf went 6-6 not 2 -10.

(09-03-2018 10:29 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I think what he is saying is, UCF was ALSO bad 5 years ago, so "past performance does not indicate future results." Or something like that.

2013 UCF was 13-1 and fiesta champs
2012 UCF was 10-4

(09-04-2018 07:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 08:09 AM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  One week of football does not effect the TV contract positively or negatively. As I have said for years on this board, it is all cyclical. I am surprised people are surprised here. After years of heavy turnover at the coaching position, the AAC was bound to take a step or two back.

It is not about wins n losses, it is about TV ratings. UCF/UCONN got very good ratings. Will have to wait n see on rest. The Conf went 6-6 not 2 -10.

I agree with you.

(09-04-2018 05:08 AM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:28 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 05:02 PM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  Good, we agree. This is what I have been saying to you for two years. people only care about the top of the conference, this the "depth"'of the AAC the past few years has never mattered. Now,'that depth does not appear to exist this year, so it matters even less.

Enjoy the games my friend. They matter.

woah, woah... i didnt say they never mattered...they definitely matter...the depth is what pushs the top to be actually good..depth insures replacements when a top team is down.

coming out of the aac as the champion meant you are actually good. coming out as the g5 champ out of anyone other conference meant you werent as bad as the others..which is why we have won all our access bowls....and no one not named boise has outside of the aac

i just said "for national perception" and the p6 movement, how good your top is is all that "the national media" cares about..it matter every where else...including deciding who gets the NY6

also the aac is deeper than the mwc even this year, and its not close....as usual your bias is blind you

any aac that lost isnt good..but you are counting teams who had blowout loses in the mwc as part of the mwc depth..because you still see them as good..

aka your team..sdsu

tulane took a projected top 6 acc team in ot...and honestly should have won .. you added them to the not good aac list (and actually mocked me in the mwc forum for saying they could still end up good)

unlv loses by over 20 to USC you added them to the mwc depth in the mwc forum...utah state lost you are adding them to the mwc depth....

I always enjoy being called biased by the guy who is speaking in absolutes. Could you point to evidence that supports your claim that the AAC is deep this year?

Disclaimer - early rankings low-value, I don't know which ones still tie to pre-season projections, etc etc etc

Looking at Massey Composite after week one results (further disclaimer, only a composite of 26 rankings as I type this, so there will be movement just within the week one Massey Composite rankings):
#1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, on down to #12 vs #12, AAC ranked higher in 10 of 12 of those comparisons - even with Boise above UCF as of now.
Average ranking for all twelve, AAC wins.
Median (which has value in talking top-to-bottom) AAC wins.
Top 4 avg ranking, Middle 4 avg ranking, Bottom 4 avg ranking: AAC wins, AAC wins,and AAC wins.


I looked really quickly at Sagarin too (his conference comparisons (which end up being division comparisons) keep me from having to look line by line)
#1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, on down to #12 vs #12, AAC ranked higher in 9 of 12 of those comparisons - even with Boise above UCF.
Average Sagarin rating for all twelve, AAC wins.
Median (which has value in talking top-to-bottom) rank, AAC wins.
Top 4 avg ranking, Middle 4 avg ranking, Bottom 4 avg ranking: AAC wins, AAC wins,and AAC wins.

Let's flip it - can you find any data driven way to dispute that the AAC top,middle, and bottom is better than the mwc (even if mwc #1 MIGHT beat out AAC #1)?

(09-03-2018 10:29 PM)canewton Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 10:01 PM)MemTiger90 Wrote:  Will ECU ever be "ECU" again?

The answer is yes. They're building the facilities, have the rabid fanbase, and still manage to draw good P5 teams at home (WVU, VT, UNC, etc.). Not all programs have this going for them, and these are qualities that top talent want to play in.

If ECU wants to capitalize off of this, they need to do what the other successful programs in this conference do - invest heavily in good coaching talent, and remove coaches that don't cut it.

We'll see what ECU does at the end of the season.

Agree. ECU will turn around quickly under the right coach. All the other elements for success are present.

(09-04-2018 07:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 08:09 AM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  One week of football does not effect the TV contract positively or negatively. As I have said for years on this board, it is all cyclical. I am surprised people are surprised here. After years of heavy turnover at the coaching position, the AAC was bound to take a step or two back.

It is not about wins n losses, it is about TV ratings. UCF/UCONN got very good ratings. Will have to wait n see on rest. The Conf went 6-6 not 2 -10.

This. The Big East circa 2005-2012 was superior to the ACC on the field by a decent margin, but the ACC eventually won out due to TV ratings.

(09-04-2018 05:08 AM)Fanhood Part Deaux Wrote:  I always enjoy being called biased by the guy who is speaking in absolutes. Could you point to evidence that supports your claim that the AAC is deep this year?

im talking compared to the other g5

and answer: everything;
-every computer still has the aac higher
-vegas still has us projected to have a stronger showing by multiple teams
-better touted rosters

that is evidence ...like it or not

the only reason you think the mwc is deeper is optimism for the mwc and your pessimistic bias against the aac

how you see it:
--mwc teams that won: good teams (even if they werent projected good and win was vs fcs)
--mwc teams that lost in blowouts but you refuse to label as bad teams from your preferences (sdsu, unlv)....
--mwc teams that werent even projected to be good but had "close loses" to p5, that you are adding as good (utah state)

- any aac team that lost regardless of situation: bad
- aac teams that came in with no hype that won- we arent counting any possibility of them being good

(09-03-2018 10:35 AM)vick mike Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 09:53 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 08:52 AM)vick mike Wrote:  

(09-02-2018 09:05 PM)TigerSeth Wrote:  Looks like Memphis, UCF, Cincy, and Houston will have to carry the load as usual. Shame on ECU and Temple. Uconn is crap too.

Temple sucked on Saturday. That being said how many conference championships does Memphis have? And how many NCAA appearances from the American?

Are you asking about AAC championships specifically, or Conference Championships in our history?

The poster I responded to, a Memphis fan, said Memphis has to carry the load as usual. He was referring to the American. My response was intended to point out that Memphis has done very little carrying of the load in this conference and putting Memphis in the same category as UCF or Houston or even Temple is absurd. Clear enough now?

Bwuahahahahaha

(09-04-2018 07:21 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-03-2018 10:29 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I think what he is saying is, UCF was ALSO bad 5 years ago, so "past performance does not indicate future results." Or something like that.

2013 UCF was 13-1 and fiesta champs
2012 UCF was 10-4

Hmmm.... Well? Then, I got nothin'.