.

As most CFB fans know, the Big East FB Conference was considered the equivalent of a "Power" Conference, by virtue of its long-running status as one of the nation's six BCS Playoff Conferences.

However, the American Athletic Conference has had more AP Top 25 teams in the past five years than The Big East Conference had over the course of its existence, from 1991 to 2012:

Big East Average (1991-2012): 2.32 Final AP Top 25 Teams

AAC Average (2015-2019): 2.50 Final AP Top 25 Teams

.

Further, the FB track record of AAC since 2015 is highly comparable with that of the Atlantic Coast Conference (2.50 vs. 2.63 Final AP Top 25 teams per year) - - since 1980.

Moreover, with an average of 3 Final AP Top 25 teams per year since 2017, the AAC has had as many or more Final AP Top 25 teams per year as the PAC-12 (2.33 Top 25 teams) Big-12 (3 Top 25 teams)) have had in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

.

Question: In terms of the number of these Top 25 AP rankings, on what basis can it be disputed that, over the past three years, the AAC has become a de facto, if not a de jure official FB "power conference?"

.

=============================================

Here's a year-by-year breakdown over the past five years of the AAC

and the last five years of the Big East FB Conference:

=============================================
.


AAC (2015-2019):

2015

Final AP Top 25 Teams: Houston (#8), Navy (#18)

Highest AP Rankings:

Houston (#8), Memphis (#15), Navy (#16), Temple (#20)


2016

Final AP Top 25 Teams: USF (#19)

Highest AP Rankings:

Houston (#6), Navy (#20), USF (#19), Temple (#23)


2017

Final AP Top 25 Teams: UCF (#6), USF (#21), Memphis (#25)

Highest AP Rankings:

UCF (#6), USF (#16), Memphis (#16), Navy (#25)


2018

Final AP Top 25 Teams: UCF (#11), Cincinnati (#24)

Highest AP Rankings:

UCF (#7), Houston (#17), Cincinnati (#19), USF (#21)


2019

Final AP Top 25: Memphis (#17), Navy (#20), Cincy (#21), UCF #24)

Highest AP Rankings:

Memphis (#15), UCF (#15), SMU (#15), Cincy (#17), Navy (#20)

.

Average Number of Final AP Top 25 Teams Per Year: 2.5

Average Number of Teams Per/Yr. That Appeared in the AP Top 25: 4.2

=============================================

.

Big East Conference (last 5 seasons, 2008-2012)

2008

Final AP Top 25 Teams: Cincinnati (#17), WVA (#23)

Highest AP Rankings:

WVA (#8), USF (#10), Cincy (#12), Pitt (#17), UConn (#24)


2009

Final AP Top 25 Teams: Cincy (#8), Pitt (#15), WVA (#25)

Highest AP Rankings:

Cincy (#4), Pitt (#8), WVA (#18), USF (#21), Rutgers (#25)


2010

Final AP Top 25 Teams: None.

Highest AP Rankings:

Pitt (#15), WVA (#20), Connecticut (#25)


2011

Final AP Top 25 Teams: WVU (#17), Cincinnati (#25)

Highest AP Rankings:

WVU (#11), USF (#16), Cincinnati (#23)


2012

Final AP Top 25 Teams: Louisville (#13)

Highest AP Rankings:

Louisville (#11), Rutgers (#18), Cincy (#21)

.

Average Number of Final AP Top 25 Teams Per Year: 1.6

Average Number of Teams Per/Yr. That Appeared in the AP Top 25: 3.8

yeah but we’re are the fans ?

This sounds like more of an argument that the Big East never should have been considered a power conference, but I will play along.

The Big East for most of its existence had an average of, what, 8 teams? So if you consider the number of top 25 finishes per average number of teams, the Big East is better. Plus Miami did actually win a consensus national champiinship while in the Big East. That helps a conferenc's cred.

But I don't know, I could go on, but all this debate seems to be doing is prove that neither the Big East nor the AAC should have/be considered a power conference.

There is a reason the original Big East fell apart, it was not a deep conference, and the AAC is now full of teams not good enough for the original Big East.

(09-04-2020 10:46 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

As most CFB fans know, the Big East FB Conference was considered the equivalent of a "Power" Conference, by virtue of its long-running status as one of the nation's six BCS Playoff Conferences.

However, the American Athletic Conference has had more AP Top 25 teams in the past five years than The Big East Conference had over the course of its existence, from 1991 to 2012:

Big East Average (1991-2012): 2.32 Final AP Top 25 Teams

AAC Average (2015-2019): 2.50 Final AP Top 25 Teams

Further, the FB track record of AAC since 2015 is highly comparable with that of the Atlantic Coast Conference (2.50 vs. 2.63 Final AP Top 25 teams per year) - - since 1980.

Moreover, with an average of 3 Final AP Top 25 teams per year since 2017, the AAC has had as many or more Final AP Top 25 teams per year as the PAC-12 (2.33 Top 25 teams) Big-12 (3 Top 25 teams)) have had in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Question: In terms of the number of these Top 25 AP rankings, on what basis can it be disputed that, over the past three years, the AAC has become a de facto, if not a de jure official FB "power conference?"

.

Average Number of Final AP Top 25 Teams Per Year: 1.6

Average Number of Teams Per/Yr. That Appeared in the AP Top 25: 3.8

Lots wrong going on here, LOL.

1) The AAC has had 12 football members those five years, the Big East never had more than 8 football teams, so obviously a league with 12 members has more chances to put teams in the Top 25 than a league with 8 members.

2) Relying on final top 25 tells us about the strength of the top of a conference, but of course a conference is made up of all of its members. That's why the only valid way to compare conferences is via methods like the Massey Composite or Sagarin, that, imperfect as they are, assess all the teams in a conference.

3) Your math seems to be wrong - by your count the AAC has had 12 T25 teams the past 5 years, which averages out to 2.4 per year, not 2.5.

4) You cherry-pick the comparison - you use the entire range of Big East years, but omit the first year of the AAC, 2014, relying on "last five years". And it's easy to see why: The AAC only had one T25 team that year, so if you include 2014, which you have to, then the AAC average drops to 2.16, which is below the overall Big East average, thus blowing up your argument.

Truth is, Massey and Sagarin show us that in the six years of the CFP, the AAC hasn't even been the top G5 conference twice, including in 2018. They haven't even established themselves as the sure-shot best G5, so it's hard to argue that they are "power" on the field in any way shape or form. Yes, in 2019, the AAC did barely beat out the ACC, one of the "P" leagues. That's a milestone. But, that was more because the ACC performed like a G5/tweener than because the AAC performed like a Power league. The gap between the ACC/AAC and the other four power leagues was substantial.

In contrast, during its last 5 years, the Big East finished 5, 2, 6, 5, 5 among conferences in the Final Sagarin rankings. That means that in four out of those five years, it beat out another AQ conference, and in one year, it beat out four of them. And unlike the AAC, which finished behind another G5 in 2018, the Big East never finished behind a non-AQ conference.

So even over its past five seasons, the Big East clearly performed better than the AAC has its past five season.

As others have said it’s hard to compare an 8 team conference with a 12 team conference. IMO the biggest difference in the two is how poor the bottom of the AAC has been. With UConn, one of the worst teams in the FBS the past few seasons gone, and with Tulsa and ECU getting significantly better I think the AAC will continue to get stronger on the field.

UC, UCF, Memphis, Navy and Houston have been competing an extremely high level (Houston not so much last year but they will turn it around). SMU and Tulane are getting to be pretty strong programs.

One of the best pieces of advice I received from a mentor early in my career was that one should never try to show or tell people how good you are. Better that they should discover that for themselves. Then they will believe it.

The AAC and some of its fans are trying way too hard.

(09-05-2020 08:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  One of the best pieces of advice I received from a mentor early in my career was that one should never try to show or tell people how good you are. Better that they should discover that for themselves. Then they will believe it.

The AAC and some of its fans are trying way too hard.

Psst…. to lift open up the curtains here there are quite a few people on this message board who pose as a fan of an AAC school who actually aren't fans of said program.

(09-05-2020 07:32 AM)goofus Wrote:  This sounds like more of an argument that the Big East never should have been considered a power conference, but I will play along.

The Big East for most of its existence had an average of, what, 8 teams? So if you consider the number of top 25 finishes per average number of teams, the Big East is better. Plus Miami did actually win a consensus national champiinship while in the Big East. That helps a conferenc's cred.

But I don't know, I could go on, but all this debate seems to be doing is prove that neither the Big East nor the AAC should have/be considered a power conference.

Regarding the Big East, it depends on how we define "power". Once Miami and VT left the Big East, it no longer was a power in a brand-value sense, the only sense that matters in terms of being included as a "power" in BCS or CFP schemes. The 2005 - 2012 Big East remained a power only because of legalities, the Big East continued to meet the threshold for remaining an AQ conference, so they were stuck with them.

But on the field? Even the post-Miami and VT Big East of 2005 - 2012 clearly performed as a "power" league on the football field. A quick look at the Sagarin or Massey Composite rankings for those times shows that it was very competitive with the other AQ conferences, not just in the marquee BCS Bowl games, put top to bottom as well. The notion that the Big East was an on the field "weak sister" is just a myth.

And that's a big reason why the BCS couldn't kick the Big East out. When they were establishing the performance threshold, once they got past the stereotype and looked at the actual data, they found that it would be basically impossible to establish a bar that would boot the Big East out without simultaneously endangering at least one or two other AQ conferences. So they settled on an easy threshold all could meet.

(09-05-2020 08:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  One of the best pieces of advice I received from a mentor early in my career was that one should never try to show or tell people how good you are. Better that they should discover that for themselves. Then they will believe it.

The AAC and some of its fans are trying way too hard.

Excellent point, ken d.

I once was with a big group of folks at a bar and a man I had not met prior to that — a monster Tennessee Vol fan, as I quickly learned — found out I was a Memphis fan. He started playfully (and maybe even subtly maliciously) ripping Tiger football and hoops, thinking he could get under my skin. After he finished bloviating, I smiled and said, "Actually, I think you are being 'too kind' to Memphis. Let me tell you the true flaws of the program." I then proceeded to constructively and politely blister Memphis athletics in a manner that made his criticisms look like child's play. When I finished, he sat there stunned. He had no comeback and realized any further effort on his part to attempt to upset me with his trash talking of "my team" would be a complete waste of his time. He was deflated.

I've since bumped into this Tennessee Vol fan a few times over the years and we always have a nice chat about Memphis sports. He "hates" the Tiger football and hoops program, but he gives them their due in my presence.

Ken D's point: Don't brag. Don't ask for acceptance. Don't show insecurity.

I embrace my chinlessness with the ladies. And they love it.

I remember having this discussion about the Big East 2.0 on some message board.

I said, for the Big East minus Miami, to remain a power conference, it needed to have:
1) Regularly 3 ranked teams in the top 25;
2) Have 2 of those teams be pretty consistently the same;
3) Have regularly 2 teams ranked in the top 15, preferably at least one top 10.

I didn't think they would do it, but they did better than expected. WVU and UL were frequently ranked and the conference frequently had 3 and often had 2 in the top 15.

AAC does not have 2 teams standing out. And their top ranked teams are usually not top 10 and frequently in the 16-25 range.

For national perception, the bottom can still be weak as long as the top is strong (see Big East 1.0 with Temple and Rutgers who wouldn't be top half of the MAC). But there need to be a couple of recognized programs. Its one of the things that has hurt the Pac 12 in perception since they moved to 12. Any of the 12 could be the top team. Other than Oregon, the other top teams change almost year by year.

On College Gameday today Desmond Howard listed Cincinnati as a darkhorse for the college football playoff. How dare he do that and how dare a Cincinnati fan post this.

-This board, probably

(09-05-2020 12:32 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  On College Gameday today Desmond Howard listed Cincinnati as a darkhorse for the college football playoff. How dare he do that and how dare a Cincinnati fan post this.

-This board, probably

In this most unusual season, the fact that there will only be three P5 champs to choose opens the door. If the P conferences play as many as 10 league games, there is a good chance that the second place teams will have two or more losses. If an AAC team can run the table, the likelihood that they won't have had a chance to measure themselves against a top P5 opponent won't be held against them as it would in normal years.

As someone who has been a fan of a team who has played in both the Big East and AAC, these are excellent points. I've always said, that the AAC was pretty comparable to the Big East of 2005-2012. I haven't really noticed any real drop off in talent in the top teams. I mean the top AAC teams every year would have been top Big East tams during that era. I do agree that it's not quite a fair comparison to compare 8 teams to 12 teams.

I think the AAC is a much better conference than given credit for.

The things holding the conference back are tough to overcome. Tradition, and a large passionate fan base. Frankly those two things hold a lot of P5 programs back too. But those things are really what TV wants, and that is what they pay for. And this is why the AAC will be a step behind the P5 conferences.

But when it comes to football being played on the field? The AAC is a pretty good conference.

(09-05-2020 11:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  I remember having this discussion about the Big East 2.0 on some message board.

I said, for the Big East minus Miami, to remain a power conference, it needed to have:
1) Regularly 3 ranked teams in the top 25;
2) Have 2 of those teams be pretty consistently the same;
3) Have regularly 2 teams ranked in the top 15, preferably at least one top 10.

I didn't think they would do it, but they did better than expected. WVU and UL were frequently ranked and the conference frequently had 3 and often had 2 in the top 15.

AAC does not have 2 teams standing out. And their top ranked teams are usually not top 10 and frequently in the 16-25 range.

For national perception, the bottom can still be weak as long as the top is strong (see Big East 1.0 with Temple and Rutgers who wouldn't be top half of the MAC). But there need to be a couple of recognized programs. Its one of the things that has hurt the Pac 12 in perception since they moved to 12. Any of the 12 could be the top team. Other than Oregon, the other top teams change almost year by year.

I was so excited when TCU was coming to the Big East.

The Big East kept proving doubters wrong by doing really good in non-conference games and bowl games. And TCU was going to add to that profile.

I think Houston, UCF and possibly another would've eventually been added too to get to 11 or 12.

It's a shame ESPN was hellbent on killing off the Big East. The baskeball schools didn't help either. They didn't want to overbloat it in basketball so they didn't want to add anyone else.

Considering that this is only the 7th year of the AAC's existence, I think the league can continue to improve its brand and competitiveness on the field. Scraping the UConn football dog poo from the bottom of the AAC shoe will certainly help in the latter. This season, due to COVID, could end up giving the AAC the most visibility and best postseason oppotunities that its ever had. I agree that talk is talk. Just go out and win.

(09-05-2020 03:41 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Considering that this is only the 7th year of the AAC's existence, I think the league can continue to improve its brand and competitiveness on the field. Scraping the UConn football dog poo from the bottom of the AAC shoe will certainly help in the latter. This season, due to COVID, could end up giving the AAC the most visibility and best postseason oppotunities that its ever had. I agree that talk is talk. Just go out and win.

UConn was a loss.

#1 was basketball. Having their women's and (although not in the last few years) their men's team raised the profile of the conference.
#2 was their flagship status. It was a name school and the premier school in their state. The rest of the schools are #2 at best in their state and usually 3rd or 4th or lower.
#3 was perception. UConn said the Big East was a better place.

The bottom 1/4th doesn't matter too much in perception. You need to have a strong top.

(09-05-2020 04:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 03:41 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Considering that this is only the 7th year of the AAC's existence, I think the league can continue to improve its brand and competitiveness on the field. Scraping the UConn football dog poo from the bottom of the AAC shoe will certainly help in the latter. This season, due to COVID, could end up giving the AAC the most visibility and best postseason oppotunities that its ever had. I agree that talk is talk. Just go out and win.

UConn was a loss.

#1 was basketball. Having their women's and (although not in the last few years) their men's team raised the profile of the conference.
#2 was their flagship status. It was a name school and the premier school in their state. The rest of the schools are #2 at best in their state and usually 3rd or 4th or lower.
#3 was perception. UConn said the Big East was a better place.

The bottom 1/4th doesn't matter too much in perception. You need to have a strong top.

I don't necessarily disagree that it was a loss but I don't see it in the same terms as you do. UConn left for the conference it was formerly a founding member of [1979-2013] so there is familiarity and a past history there. Jumping conferences is nothing new. Maryland left the ACC; Nebraska, Colorado, TXAM and Missouri all left the B12 - teams leave conferences for different reasons.

The UConn brand is not what it used to be - the women's hoops dominance aside. Football drives the bus now in conference media deals not hoops. They couldn't compete and/or didn't want to in football. If UConn being a flagship was that important then I see no other P5 that reached out to add them over the years. IMO, the only perception that matters is on the field results and how a conference builds/maintains winning consistency.

(09-05-2020 04:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 03:41 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Considering that this is only the 7th year of the AAC's existence, I think the league can continue to improve its brand and competitiveness on the field. Scraping the UConn football dog poo from the bottom of the AAC shoe will certainly help in the latter. This season, due to COVID, could end up giving the AAC the most visibility and best postseason oppotunities that its ever had. I agree that talk is talk. Just go out and win.

UConn was a loss.

#1 was basketball. Having their women's and (although not in the last few years) their men's team raised the profile of the conference.
#2 was their flagship status. It was a name school and the premier school in their state. The rest of the schools are #2 at best in their state and usually 3rd or 4th or lower.
#3 was perception. UConn said the Big East was a better place.

The bottom 1/4th doesn't matter too much in perception. You need to have a strong top.

The flagship thing doesn’t mean a damn thing if you are in a state and region with little home grown talent. The fact of the matter is UConn just could not attract the talent that physically matched up with the athletes at schools in Florida, Texas and Ohio. I’ve said this before but it is better to be #2 in Ohio, #3 in PA, or #4-5 in Florida and Texas in recruiting than it is to be #1 in many states in this country.

(09-05-2020 05:44 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 04:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 03:41 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Considering that this is only the 7th year of the AAC's existence, I think the league can continue to improve its brand and competitiveness on the field. Scraping the UConn football dog poo from the bottom of the AAC shoe will certainly help in the latter. This season, due to COVID, could end up giving the AAC the most visibility and best postseason oppotunities that its ever had. I agree that talk is talk. Just go out and win.

UConn was a loss.

#1 was basketball. Having their women's and (although not in the last few years) their men's team raised the profile of the conference.
#2 was their flagship status. It was a name school and the premier school in their state. The rest of the schools are #2 at best in their state and usually 3rd or 4th or lower.
#3 was perception. UConn said the Big East was a better place.

The bottom 1/4th doesn't matter too much in perception. You need to have a strong top.

I don't necessarily disagree that it was a loss but I don't see it in the same terms as you do. UConn left for the conference it was formerly a founding member of [1979-2013] so there is familiarity and a past history there. Jumping conferences is nothing new. Maryland left the ACC; Nebraska, Colorado, TXAM and Missouri all left the B12 - teams leave conferences for different reasons.

The UConn brand is not what it used to be - the women's hoops dominance aside. Football drives the bus now in conference media deals not hoops. They couldn't compete and/or didn't want to in football. If UConn being a flagship was that important then I see no other P5 that reached out to add them over the years. IMO, the only perception that matters is on the field results and how a conference builds/maintains winning consistency.

UConn MBB has left a gap in the middle of the pack of the AAC, but it is a gap that can certainly be filled, either by another program improving, or by adding a higher quality BB school. If another AAC program improves to mid-pack quality, the conference will stand still as the #7 conference among the Major 7 conferences. If a higher-quality BB school is added to take UConn's place, the ACC will have a chance to move up a notch or two in the Major 7 and to start sending 4+ teams to the NCAA ever year.