That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

(10-12-2013 09:13 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

I disagree...the top of the conference is not good. If I think about this year teams and the Old Big East...on a good year (WVA, UC, USF, RU ranked etc)

UofL is legit and would be right there competing for the Old Big East vs ranked WVA, UC, USF, RU but...

UCF is decent and would also compete for the old Big East title.

UH has beaten nobody...let's be honest. You run this team through the old Big East and I think they struggle to get to .500.

UC isn't good, and neither is anybody else in the confere.

So really you have UofL who would have a chance to win the old Big East and UCF would compete for a top 3 spot. That's it.

So no, this conference isn't good at the top.

This year the AAC is putrid...check out Quo Vadis' BCS rankings...we are something like 3-22 vs BCS schools. The old Big East held it's own in this ranking...the AAC, no.

(10-13-2013 09:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:13 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

UH has beaten nobody...let's be honest. You run this team through the old Big East and I think they struggle to get to .500.

If we haven't beaten anybody, how would you know how good we are yet? You might want to reserve judgement, buddy.

(10-13-2013 09:47 AM)Brian Reading Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 09:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:13 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

UH has beaten nobody...let's be honest. You run this team through the old Big East and I think they struggle to get to .500.

If we haven't beaten anybody, how would you know how good we are yet? You might want to reserve judgement, buddy.

You have a valid argument...and I guess I'm assuming too much. But if I was a betting man and had to bet that your UH team would compete for the old Big East title or struggle to get to .500, I bet the latter. It's just my opinion.

(10-13-2013 10:01 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 09:47 AM)Brian Reading Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 09:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:13 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

UH has beaten nobody...let's be honest. You run this team through the old Big East and I think they struggle to get to .500.

If we haven't beaten anybody, how would you know how good we are yet? You might want to reserve judgement, buddy.

You have a valid argument...and I guess I'm assuming too much. But if I was a betting man and had to bet that your UH team would compete for the old Big East title or struggle to get to .500, I bet the latter. It's just my opinion.

Just two years ago, that UH team would have won the Big East (and it wouldn't have been close).. but as you said, that's "just my opinion."



Right now, we are breaking in a true freshan QB. So, our offense is running roughly 60% of the playbook. I think they're doing a good job.

(10-13-2013 09:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:13 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

I disagree...the top of the conference is not good. If I think about this year teams and the Old Big East...on a good year (WVA, UC, USF, RU ranked etc)

UofL is legit and would be right there competing for the Old Big East vs ranked WVA, UC, USF, RU but...

UCF is decent and would also compete for the old Big East title.

UH has beaten nobody...let's be honest. You run this team through the old Big East and I think they struggle to get to .500.

UC isn't good, and neither is anybody else in the confere.

So really you have UofL who would have a chance to win the old Big East and UCF would compete for a top 3 spot. That's it.

So no, this conference isn't good at the top.

This year the AAC is putrid...check out Quo Vadis' BCS rankings...we are something like 3-22 vs BCS schools. The old Big East held it's own in this ranking...the AAC, no.

The old big east is irrelevant, just as when Houston was beating top ranked opponents with its high power offenses than... Remember Pardee, Briles, Sumlin to name a few!?!

(10-12-2013 09:13 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

Good. Factual post.

The tiers of this conference are beginning to show themselves. ECU and Tulane are looking to be capable adds. Good statement win for ECU over the Tar Heels.

(10-13-2013 10:05 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 10:01 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 09:47 AM)Brian Reading Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 09:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:13 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

UH has beaten nobody...let's be honest. You run this team through the old Big East and I think they struggle to get to .500.

If we haven't beaten anybody, how would you know how good we are yet? You might want to reserve judgement, buddy.

You have a valid argument...and I guess I'm assuming too much. But if I was a betting man and had to bet that your UH team would compete for the old Big East title or struggle to get to .500, I bet the latter. It's just my opinion.

Just two years ago, that UH team would have won the Big East (and it wouldn't have been close).. but as you said, that's "just my opinion."



Right now, we are breaking in a true freshan QB. So, our offense is running roughly 60% of the playbook. I think they're doing a good job.

Right on, BigEastHomer

(10-13-2013 10:05 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Just two years ago, that UH team would have won the Big East (and it wouldn't have been close).. but as you said, that's "just my opinion."

Just two years ago that UH team couldn't win C-USA so how on earth was it going to win the Big East?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...51620700/1

(10-13-2013 10:14 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:13 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  That conference is the ACC. The AAC is second with two undefeated teams.

The top of the conference is good this year. The middle is beginning to define itself in Memphis and USF being competitive. SMU is better than their records indicates after playing two top teams and losing a tough one, I dare to say top team, Rutgers.

UCONN needs to settle down with the new coach and I think they'll recover in the next year or so. Temple has an exciting freshmen QB and defense to work with and are young.

Tulane and ECU won't replace Louisville and Rutgers but won't make it hurt as much. What can we expect from Tulsa I don't know. Navy will be competitive.

Good. Factual post.

The tiers of this conference are beginning to show themselves.

Here are the tiers that have begun to show themselves:

AAC Conference Standings

South Florida .... 2-0
Louisville .......... 2-0
Houston ........... 2-0
UCF ................ 1-0
Cincy .............. 1-1
Rutgers ........... 1-1
SMU ............... 0-1
UConn ............. 0-1
Memphis .......... 0-2
Temple ............ 0-3

Note that i listed USF above Houston because whereas the combined conference records of the two AAC teams we have beaten (subtracting out their losses to us) is 1-0, the combined record of the two AAC teams Houston has beaten (minus their losses to Houston) is 0-3. Houston is 2-0 against the worst two teams in our conference so far.

So no reason for Houston fans to be getting big-headed here.

Houston will probably lose to BYU. Then, you can really be happy.

UH has not played anyone....

(10-13-2013 06:27 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UH has not played anyone....

Neither has Cincy, and yet they've still managed 2 losses.

We're 5-0, and the youngest team in the AAC. How's that for a scary thought? UH and UCF (two noobs) will be the AAC favorites for the next few years, deal with it.

(10-13-2013 09:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I disagree...the top of the conference is not good. If I think about this year teams and the Old Big East...on a good year (WVA, UC, USF, RU ranked etc)

UofL is legit and would be right there competing for the Old Big East vs ranked WVA, UC, USF, RU but...

UCF is decent and would also compete for the old Big East title.

UH has beaten nobody...let's be honest. You run this team through the old Big East and I think they struggle to get to .500.

UC isn't good, and neither is anybody else in the confere.

So really you have UofL who would have a chance to win the old Big East and UCF would compete for a top 3 spot. That's it.

So no, this conference isn't good at the top.

This year the AAC is putrid...check out Quo Vadis' BCS rankings...we are something like 3-22 vs BCS schools. The old Big East held it's own in this ranking...the AAC, no.

Let's not get carried away with how good the old Big East was. Just two or three years ago the old Big East was something like 1 and 17 against BCS competition until they started to win a few games at the end of the year and a few bowl games.

As for Quo Vadis' BCS rankings ranking of AAC teams this year, it horribly skewed with the horrible losses of the bottom of the conference which provide a -1.5 loss to the rankings. Those losses have ZERO to do with my claim of the top of the conference.

In your argument you present, oddly you list Rutgers in the old Big East but neglect to list them in the new AAC. I'm not sure the quality of this years' team differs much if any from the old Big East teams.

The problem with the old Big East is that the bottom of the old Big East usually came up with multiple wins against the supposedly top of the conference. Some called it parity while others called it a solid conference top to bottom.

Whatever you called it, the top of the conference may or may not been better then the top of this years crop of AAC teams.

(10-13-2013 07:03 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  As for Quo Vadis' BCS rankings ranking of AAC teams this year, it horribly skewed with the horrible losses of the bottom of the conference which provide a -1.5 loss to the rankings. Those losses have ZERO to do with my claim of the top of the conference.

Even if you count the awful losses to FCS teams as just one loss, we are still 3-18, pretty darn bad.

(10-13-2013 07:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 07:03 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  As for Quo Vadis' BCS rankings ranking of AAC teams this year, it horribly skewed with the horrible losses of the bottom of the conference which provide a -1.5 loss to the rankings. Those losses have ZERO to do with my claim of the top of the conference.

Even if you count the awful losses to FCS teams as just one loss, we are still 3-18, pretty darn bad.

Even if you count them as just one loss it still has nothing to do with my argument of the top of the conference. Those are still losses at the bottom of the conference.

Do you remember which year that the old Big East started 1 and 17 (or thereabouts) because I don't remember the year just that it happened?

(10-13-2013 11:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 10:05 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Just two years ago, that UH team would have won the Big East (and it wouldn't have been close).. but as you said, that's "just my opinion."

Just two years ago that UH team couldn't win C-USA so how on earth was it going to win the Big East?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...51620700/1

Yes they would, if that idiot coach wouldn't bail on us and stayed till the end of the season.

(10-13-2013 06:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 06:27 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UH has not played anyone....

Neither has Cincy, and yet they've still managed 2 losses.

We're 5-0, and the youngest team in the AAC. How's that for a scary thought? UH and UCF (two noobs) will be the AAC favorites for the next few years, deal with it.

We arent very good this year. UC isnt the topic...its looking at the AAC and saying "Its pretty good at the top"....because its not.

UofL is
UCF is solid
RU is fair
UH is undefeated with a collection of stiffs

those four arent "good"...

and everyone else is garbage or worse

(10-13-2013 09:03 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 06:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 06:27 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  UH has not played anyone....

Neither has Cincy, and yet they've still managed 2 losses.

We're 5-0, and the youngest team in the AAC. How's that for a scary thought? UH and UCF (two noobs) will be the AAC favorites for the next few years, deal with it.

We arent very good this year. UC isnt the topic...its looking at the AAC and saying "Its pretty good at the top"....because its not.

UofL is
UCF is solid
RU is fair
UH is undefeated with a collection of stiffs

those four arent "good"...

and everyone else is garbage or worse

You know what they say 'opinions are like'...

(10-13-2013 07:03 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(10-13-2013 09:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I disagree...the top of the conference is not good. If I think about this year teams and the Old Big East...on a good year (WVA, UC, USF, RU ranked etc)

UofL is legit and would be right there competing for the Old Big East vs ranked WVA, UC, USF, RU but...

UCF is decent and would also compete for the old Big East title.

UH has beaten nobody...let's be honest. You run this team through the old Big East and I think they struggle to get to .500.

UC isn't good, and neither is anybody else in the confere.

So really you have UofL who would have a chance to win the old Big East and UCF would compete for a top 3 spot. That's it.

So no, this conference isn't good at the top.

This year the AAC is putrid...check out Quo Vadis' BCS rankings...we are something like 3-22 vs BCS schools. The old Big East held it's own in this ranking...the AAC, no.

Let's not get carried away with how good the old Big East was. Just two or three years ago the old Big East was something like 1 and 17 against BCS competition until they started to win a few games at the end of the year and a few bowl games.

As for Quo Vadis' BCS rankings ranking of AAC teams this year, it horribly skewed with the horrible losses of the bottom of the conference which provide a -1.5 loss to the rankings. Those losses have ZERO to do with my claim of the top of the conference.

In your argument you present, oddly you list Rutgers in the old Big East but neglect to list them in the new AAC. I'm not sure the quality of this years' team differs much if any from the old Big East teams.

The problem with the old Big East is that the bottom of the old Big East usually came up with multiple wins against the supposedly top of the conference. Some called it parity while others called it a solid conference top to bottom.

Whatever you called it, the top of the conference may or may not been better then the top of this years crop of AAC teams.

I never said every year the old big east was great. But more years than not it was good to very good and sure as heck better than the aac