+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: Another reason AAC is best of the rest (/thread-746038.html)
Pages: 1 2
Another reason AAC is best of the rest - Hokie Mark - 08-24-2015 09:14 AM
National Championships*
SMU, 3 - 1935, 1981, 1982
Army, 3 - 1944, 1945, 1946
Navy, 1 - 1926
Quote:In my opinion, national championships is what defines the line between "power 5" and "group of 5" conferences. The current membership of the ACC has 16 national titles between them; the Big Ten has 29, the SEC has 21, the Pac-12 has 11, the Big XII, 10. Among G5 conferences the count is AAC 4, all others zero.
http://americanrx.blogspot.com/2015/08/g5-national-champs.html
* generally-recognized; schools may claim others as well.
RE: Another reason the ACC is 6th FBS conference - Pony94 - 08-24-2015 09:16 AM
So does that make the AAC #5?
RE: Another reason the ACC is 6th FBS conference - CliftonAve - 08-24-2015 09:16 AM
Mark, I think your thread title is supposed to read "Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference".
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - Hokie Mark - 08-24-2015 10:14 AM
(08-24-2015 09:16 AM)Pony94 Wrote: So does that make the AAC #5?
(08-24-2015 09:16 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: Mark, I think your thread title is supposed to read "Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference".
YES... I AM SO STUPID!
Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - Pony94 - 08-24-2015 10:21 AM
We are just playing and thanks for posting
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - Chappy - 08-24-2015 10:24 AM
Let's get Army (FB) and BYU (all sports) on board!
That would give us 8!
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - CliftonAve - 08-24-2015 10:37 AM
(08-24-2015 09:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: National Championships*
SMU, 3 - 1935, 1981, 1982
Army, 3 - 1944, 1945, 1946
Navy, 1 - 1926
Quote:In my opinion, national championships is what defines the line between "power 5" and "group of 5" conferences. The current membership of the ACC has 16 national titles between them; the Big Ten has 29, the SEC has 21, the Pac-12 has 11, the Big XII, 10. Among G5 conferences the count is AAC 4, all others zero.
http://americanrx.blogspot.com/2015/08/g5-national-champs.html
* generally-recognized; schools may claim others as well.
It is interesting to note that the B12 only has 10 national titles. I know they lost a number of championships when Nebraska, Colorado, TA&M and Missouri left, but I did not realize the remaining group only had 10 between them. Hell the BE from 2005-2011 had nearly double that and the national media beat the drum every day that the conference should lose its AQ BCS status.
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - Huskies12 - 08-24-2015 10:37 AM
Can you post all those VA Tech championship banners?
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - CliftonAve - 08-24-2015 10:39 AM
(08-24-2015 10:24 AM)Chappy Wrote: Let's get Army (FB) and BYU (all sports) on board!
That would give us 8!
Might as well add Harvard and Yale. They have 31 national titles between them and would put us over all the P5 schools.
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - Chappy - 08-24-2015 10:40 AM
They would raise our academic profile a little bit too!
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - PirateMarv - 08-24-2015 11:06 AM
(08-24-2015 10:37 AM)Huskies12 Wrote: Can you post all those VA Tech championship banners?
I would like to see those ones from Wake Forest too.
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - Huskies12 - 08-24-2015 11:07 AM
There is a certain BC poster who defends all schools from trolls, I'm sure he would be happy to take up the case.
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - NTXCoog - 08-24-2015 11:12 AM
(08-24-2015 10:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:(08-24-2015 09:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: National Championships*
SMU, 3 - 1935, 1981, 1982
Army, 3 - 1944, 1945, 1946
Navy, 1 - 1926
Quote:In my opinion, national championships is what defines the line between "power 5" and "group of 5" conferences. The current membership of the ACC has 16 national titles between them; the Big Ten has 29, the SEC has 21, the Pac-12 has 11, the Big XII, 10. Among G5 conferences the count is AAC 4, all others zero.
http://americanrx.blogspot.com/2015/08/g5-national-champs.html
* generally-recognized; schools may claim others as well.
It is interesting to note that the B12 only has 10 national titles. I know they lost a number of championships when Nebraska, Colorado, TA&M and Missouri left, but I did not realize the remaining group only had 10 between them. Hell the BE from 2005-2011 had nearly double that and the national media beat the drum every day that the conference should lose its AQ BCS status.
What is the 10 based on? AP only? I see at least 13.
OU - 7
UT - 4
TCU - 2
RE: Another reason the AAC is 6th FBS conference - Hokie Mark - 08-24-2015 01:34 PM
TBH, I'd given the Big XII two more titles:
Texas 2005
Oklahoma 2000
Oklahoma 1985
Oklahoma 1975
Oklahoma 1974
Texas 1970
Texas 1969
Texas 1963
Oklahoma 1956
Oklahoma 1955
Oklahoma 1950
TCU 1938
Which other year would you give to TCU?
RE: Another reason AAC is best of the rest - NTXCoog - 08-25-2015 07:53 AM
(08-24-2015 01:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: TBH, I'd given the Big XII two more titles:
Texas 2005
Oklahoma 2000
Oklahoma 1985
Oklahoma 1975
Oklahoma 1974
Texas 1970
Texas 1969
Texas 1963
Oklahoma 1956
Oklahoma 1955
Oklahoma 1950
TCU 1938
Which other year would you give to TCU?
Per cfbdatawarehouse (linked to in original post): 1935
Another reason AAC is best of the rest - CalallenStang - 08-25-2015 08:18 AM
(08-25-2015 07:53 AM)NTXCoog Wrote:(08-24-2015 01:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: TBH, I'd given the Big XII two more titles:
Texas 2005
Oklahoma 2000
Oklahoma 1985
Oklahoma 1975
Oklahoma 1974
Texas 1970
Texas 1969
Texas 1963
Oklahoma 1956
Oklahoma 1955
Oklahoma 1950
TCU 1938
Which other year would you give to TCU?
Per cfbdatawarehouse (linked to in original post): 1935
They lost to us in 1935 (at an overfilled Amon G. Carter stadium on TCU's campus) so their claim that year is invalid. Minnesota has a strong claim that year IIRC.
We lost the Rose Bowl that year but at that time they declared national champions prior to the bowl games.
RE: Another reason AAC is best of the rest - Knights_of_UCF - 08-25-2015 08:51 AM
On a level playing field gotta admit Boise would have been in at least one champ game if not two. This is kind of a "no duh" post. Most G5 are very young or have never been in correct group of schools to be considered for a champ game especially in the modern era. Does it really matter a school won a championship 20-30-50+ years ago? Answer is no.
RE: Another reason AAC is best of the rest - pesik - 08-25-2015 09:59 AM
(08-25-2015 08:51 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: On a level playing field gotta admit Boise would have been in at least one champ game if not two. This is kind of a "no duh" post. Most G5 are very young or have never been in correct group of schools to be considered for a champ game especially in the modern era. Does it really matter a school won a championship 20-30-50+ years ago? Answer is no.
yes it does... national championships never go away
bama prides itself in its national championships..they have both the most total championships and the most in recent years
guess which one they promote?
they promote the most total championships...and half of those were pre 50
smu still brags about it national championships (and they weren't even AP or coaches championships but lesser secondary polls)
if houston won a championship in the 40's best believe id be bragging about it today..
and your "no duh" is not a no duh....or even close...boise can outrecruit the MWC by a wide margin ..but their is a clear ceiling on how much they can recruit because of location...no recruits in boise, no one wants to live in boise in volume...100% of national championships have been from teams that were elite recruiters for the times they were in.. the modern era with the playoff, the inventions of spread offense(to circumvent talent), increased restriction on bribing, limiting scholarships to 25 and the ability to broadcast nationwide for everyone is probably the most access non elite recruiter have had to a natty ...
id bet a million dollars that boise could have started in 1909 they still wouldnt have won a national championship..your "no duh" post is naive at best
RE: Another reason AAC is best of the rest - Knights_of_UCF - 08-25-2015 12:35 PM
(08-25-2015 09:59 AM)pesik Wrote:weird because with the deck definitely more stacked against it now than 50 years ago Boise has managed to go undefeated a few times and get in national title talk despite not being in a power conference ever.(08-25-2015 08:51 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: On a level playing field gotta admit Boise would have been in at least one champ game if not two. This is kind of a "no duh" post. Most G5 are very young or have never been in correct group of schools to be considered for a champ game especially in the modern era. Does it really matter a school won a championship 20-30-50+ years ago? Answer is no.
yes it does... national championships never go away
bama prides itself in its national championships..they have both the most total championships and the most in recent years
guess which one they promote?
they promote the most total championships...and half of those were pre 50
smu still brags about it national championships (and they weren't even AP or coaches championships but lesser secondary polls)
if houston won a championship in the 40's best believe id be bragging about it today..
and your "no duh" is not a no duh....or even close...boise can outrecruit the MWC by a wide margin ..but their is a clear ceiling on how much they can recruit because of location...no recruits in boise, no one wants to live in boise in volume...100% of national championships have been from teams that were elite recruiters for the times they were in.. the modern era with the playoff, the inventions of spread offense(to circumvent talent), increased restriction on bribing, limiting scholarships to 25 and the ability to broadcast nationwide for everyone is probably the most access non elite recruiter have had to a natty ...
id bet a million dollars that boise could have started in 1909 they still wouldnt have won a national championship..your "no duh" post is naive at best
and a few years when Boise did go undefeated and destroy opponents I'm willing to wager they could have won a championship too if given an opportunity.
RE: Another reason AAC is best of the rest - pesik - 08-25-2015 01:19 PM
(08-25-2015 12:35 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: weird because with the deck definitely more stacked against it now than 50 years ago Boise has managed to go undefeated a few times and get in national title talk despite not being in a power conference ever.
and a few years when Boise did go undefeated and destroy opponents I'm willing to wager they could have won a championship too if given an opportunity.
im guessing your a new college football fan who only started watching in the last decade..
if you think "deck definitely more stacked against it now than 50 years ago"
that have got to be the most wrong statement ive ever heard...
their were no scholarship limit then every elite school would bring in EVERY elite recruit or decent athlete... almost over half the athletes in the lower p5 and top g5 in the current system are kids who were waiting on top offers that never came because scholly limits were hit and the top players they wanted they got..in the oldschool era the top school gets everyone..50-60 recruiting classes werent uncommon
they were little monitoring on bribing ..recruits, players or the media (that decided the championships)....
and what makes your post so naive is that you dont realize to get into the natty conversation you had to get into a major bowl ... the bowls chose who they wanted with little restriction besides a few conference/city ties and almost always chose the blue bloods.....
boise wasnt getting into the a major bowl...auto bids didnt exist
and it was before the invention of the spreads, when prostyle ruled supreme...prostyle offense almost always benefit the team with the better athletes (especially in the trenches)..that why if you look at the history books, cetain teams had 5-10 year runs of conference championships because winning off pure talent was the norm
the mid 80's to mid 90s...was probably the only "kinda" not stacked era..as it introduced the restrictions of schollys, increased monitoring of the ncaa and it was before the era in which you had to be in a conference to succeed...meaning you could have been indy scheduled alot of power indys (like pitt, fsu miami etc) and and won to win a title...and i say kinda as scheduling the power indy's wasnt an easy task ..and i doubt youd have had many going to boise idaho
and before you keep speaking about something you clearly know nothing about...and i mean you know absolutely nothing about....please look at the resumes of miami (oh), rutgers who have had undefeated season but didnt even crack top 10..miami oh is top 15 most winning programs in d1 history..but has never been higher than 10
i really wish there was a way to wager, and this would have been the easiest money ive ever won