The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

C-USA West
Rice 10-2
North Texas 9-4
UTSA 7-5
LA Tech 4-8
UTEP 2-10
UAB 2-10
Southern Miss 1-11

AAC West
Navy 9-4
Houston 8-5
Tulane 7-6
SMU 5-7
Tulsa 3-9
Memphis 3-9

(05-30-2014 08:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

C-USA West
Rice 10-2
North Texas 9-4
UTSA 7-5
LA Tech 4-8
UTEP 2-10
UAB 2-10
Southern Miss 1-11

AAC West
Navy 9-4
Houston 8-5
Tulane 7-6
SMU 5-7
Tulsa 3-9
Memphis 3-9

Considering CUSA champ and third place finisher lost to UH....

(05-30-2014 11:19 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 08:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

C-USA West
Rice 10-2
North Texas 9-4
UTSA 7-5
LA Tech 4-8
UTEP 2-10
UAB 2-10
Southern Miss 1-11

AAC West
Navy 9-4
Houston 8-5
Tulane 7-6
SMU 5-7
Tulsa 3-9
Memphis 3-9

Considering CUSA champ and third place finisher lost to UH....

end of thread

(05-30-2014 11:19 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 08:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

C-USA West
Rice 10-2
North Texas 9-4
UTSA 7-5
LA Tech 4-8
UTEP 2-10
UAB 2-10
Southern Miss 1-11

AAC West
Navy 9-4
Houston 8-5
Tulane 7-6
SMU 5-7
Tulsa 3-9
Memphis 3-9

Considering CUSA champ and third place finisher lost to UH....

The strength of a division is the sum of all of its teams, not just one program. Houston had a good season last year, but overall, I don't see where either division looks much better then the other. C-USA has a few more programs that are down right now, but I don't expect Southern Miss or LA Tech to stay down for long. Navy in the AAC West makes zero sense from a geographic standpoint, but they will help SMU with their attendance every other year.

SSJoe,

I think you may have whiffed on this one. Below is a table depicting the 2013 end-of-season RPI for each of the 13 teams. The top four teams are evenly split between the two conferences, but four of the bottom six are from C-USA.

As you say, the strength of a division is the sum of all of its teams, and the average RPI for the AAC West is 19.02 while the average for the C-USA West is 17.02, and the average RPI rank for the AAC West is 77 compared to 97 for the C-USA West.

Both conferences have two teams in that top four cluster, but when the divisions are compared in total, the AAC West clearly comes out on top. I was trying to help, but it just did not work out that way.

36 Rice 10-4 24.07

44 Navy 9-4 22.38

45 Houston 8-5 22.09

48 North Texas 9-4 21.75

65 UTSA 7-5 20.27

67 Tulane 7-6 20.22

92 So. Methodist 5-7 17.62

103 Memphis 3-9 16.05

107 Tulsa 3-9 15.77

122 LA Tech 4-8 14.13

123 UAB 2-10 14.12

138 UTEP 2-10 12.91

149 So. Miss 1-11 11.90

Yeah, the AAC is better. Look at the overall history of UH and SMU. Those are quality programs. The only issue I see with UH in particular is that, no matter what they do, they seem to cap out at 35,000 fans. In a city of several million people, that's disappointing. They are a TV team and have been one since the SWC started its downhill slide back in the 1980s.

(05-31-2014 07:39 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 11:19 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 08:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

C-USA West
Rice 10-2
North Texas 9-4
UTSA 7-5
LA Tech 4-8
UTEP 2-10
UAB 2-10
Southern Miss 1-11

AAC West
Navy 9-4
Houston 8-5
Tulane 7-6
SMU 5-7
Tulsa 3-9
Memphis 3-9

Considering CUSA champ and third place finisher lost to UH....

The strength of a division is the sum of all of its teams, not just one program. Houston had a good season last year, but overall, I don't see where either division looks much better then the other. C-USA has a few more programs that are down right now, but I don't expect Southern Miss or LA Tech to stay down for long. Navy in the AAC West makes zero sense from a geographic standpoint, but they will help SMU with their attendance every other year.

One team doesn't make a division, but the 3 worst records are CUSA. Then throw in the schedule differences. AAC west teams played more top 25 teams and they played less teams in the bottom rung.

Memphis played 3 top 25
Houston 3
SMU 2
Navy 2
Tulsa 1
Tulane 0

UAB 2
Rice 1
UTSA 1
UTEP 1
Southern Miss 1 (in one poll)
North Texas 0
LA Tech 0

(05-31-2014 09:07 AM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  SSJoe,

I think you may have whiffed on this one. Below is a table depicting the 2013 end-of-season RPI for each of the 13 teams. The top four teams are evenly split between the two conferences, but four of the bottom six are from C-USA.

As you say, the strength of a division is the sum of all of its teams, and the average RPI for the AAC West is 19.02 while the average for the C-USA West is 17.02, and the average RPI rank for the AAC West is 77 compared to 97 for the C-USA West.

Both conferences have two teams in that top four cluster, but when the divisions are compared in total, the AAC West clearly comes out on top. I was trying to help, but it just did not work out that way.

36 Rice 10-4 24.07

44 Navy 9-4 22.38

45 Houston 8-5 22.09

48 North Texas 9-4 21.75

65 UTSA 7-5 20.27

67 Tulane 7-6 20.22

92 So. Methodist 5-7 17.62

103 Memphis 3-9 16.05

107 Tulsa 3-9 15.77

122 LA Tech 4-8 14.13

123 UAB 2-10 14.12

138 UTEP 2-10 12.91

149 So. Miss 1-11 11.90

I see where you are coming from. With Houston and SMU having been in the SWC, and Navy being Navy, the AAC West does have a stronger history. I even went and looked at last seasons attendance. The teams of the future AAC West averaged about 3,000 more overall last season. Based on last seasons performances, the new AAC West would be more competitive. C-USA West needs Southern Miss and LA Tech need to get back to winning.

Although C-USA West is a little weaker overall, I still prefer that line up. I like North Texas having conference games against 3 other Texas schools. I like being in the same division with LA Tech and Southern Miss.

(05-31-2014 03:25 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 11:19 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 08:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

C-USA West
Rice 10-2
North Texas 9-4
UTSA 7-5
LA Tech 4-8
UTEP 2-10
UAB 2-10
Southern Miss 1-11

AAC West
Navy 9-4
Houston 8-5
Tulane 7-6
SMU 5-7
Tulsa 3-9
Memphis 3-9

Considering CUSA champ and third place finisher lost to UH....

The strength of a division is the sum of all of its teams, not just one program. Houston had a good season last year, but overall, I don't see where either division looks much better then the other. C-USA has a few more programs that are down right now, but I don't expect Southern Miss or LA Tech to stay down for long. Navy in the AAC West makes zero sense from a geographic standpoint, but they will help SMU with their attendance every other year.

One team doesn't make a division, but the 3 worst records are CUSA. Then throw in the schedule differences. AAC west teams played more top 25 teams and they played less teams in the bottom rung.

Memphis played 3 top 25
Houston 3
SMU 2
Navy 2
Tulsa 1
Tulane 0

UAB 2
Rice 1
UTSA 1
UTEP 1
Southern Miss 1 (in one poll)
North Texas 0
LA Tech 0

North Texas played #9 Georgia last season, and we were tied with them 21-21 in the 3rd quarter.

(05-31-2014 03:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 03:25 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 11:19 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 08:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

C-USA West
Rice 10-2
North Texas 9-4
UTSA 7-5
LA Tech 4-8
UTEP 2-10
UAB 2-10
Southern Miss 1-11

AAC West
Navy 9-4
Houston 8-5
Tulane 7-6
SMU 5-7
Tulsa 3-9
Memphis 3-9

Considering CUSA champ and third place finisher lost to UH....

The strength of a division is the sum of all of its teams, not just one program. Houston had a good season last year, but overall, I don't see where either division looks much better then the other. C-USA has a few more programs that are down right now, but I don't expect Southern Miss or LA Tech to stay down for long. Navy in the AAC West makes zero sense from a geographic standpoint, but they will help SMU with their attendance every other year.

One team doesn't make a division, but the 3 worst records are CUSA. Then throw in the schedule differences. AAC west teams played more top 25 teams and they played less teams in the bottom rung.

Memphis played 3 top 25
Houston 3
SMU 2
Navy 2
Tulsa 1
Tulane 0

UAB 2
Rice 1
UTSA 1
UTEP 1
Southern Miss 1 (in one poll)
North Texas 0
LA Tech 0

North Texas played #9 Georgia last season, and we were tied with them 21-21 in the 3rd quarter.

I'm talking ranked at the end of the season. Anyone can be ranked at some point, especially early in the season, and fall apart (classic example USF in 2007 starting 6-0 and #2 in the country and finishing 9-4 and unranked. Closer to home, UH was ranked #23 in 2010 after 2 weeks. Unfortunately we finished 5-7 showing the idiocy of saying you played a ranked team based on early season rankings) Georgia finished 8-5 and unranked so I didn't count them.

And I love the "we were close late in the game" arguments. Unfortunately a game is 4 quarters. UNT lost by 24, but you don't mention that. Losing by more than 3 TDs is a blowout, no matter how the game went. UTSA likes to say they were only down by 3 in the 4th quarter to UH last year too. Too bad they lost by 31.

But if we wanted to use similar logic, UH could say we blew out Rice. After all, we were ahead by 3 scores with 11 minutes to go in the game. But in reality, we only won by 5. So see how stupid that sounds?

(05-30-2014 08:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

Who knows what is going to happen going forward, but La Tech, UTEP, UAB and USM wouldn't have won a game against AAC west last year, and all but La Tech would have been blown out (like they were in C-USA except when they played among themselves).

(05-31-2014 05:35 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 08:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The AAC has finalized their divisions for the 2015 season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...3.html%22}

Does either 2015 western division really stand out as that much better? Thoughts? The quality of the teams could be very different by 2015, but I included last seasons records anyway.

Who knows what is going to happen going forward, but La Tech, UTEP, UAB and USM wouldn't have won a game against AAC west last year, and all but La Tech would have been blown out (like they were in C-USA except when they played among themselves).

I think LA Tech might have been able to beat Memphis.

(05-31-2014 05:09 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 03:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 03:25 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 11:19 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  Considering CUSA champ and third place finisher lost to UH....

The strength of a division is the sum of all of its teams, not just one program. Houston had a good season last year, but overall, I don't see where either division looks much better then the other. C-USA has a few more programs that are down right now, but I don't expect Southern Miss or LA Tech to stay down for long. Navy in the AAC West makes zero sense from a geographic standpoint, but they will help SMU with their attendance every other year.

One team doesn't make a division, but the 3 worst records are CUSA. Then throw in the schedule differences. AAC west teams played more top 25 teams and they played less teams in the bottom rung.

Memphis played 3 top 25
Houston 3
SMU 2
Navy 2
Tulsa 1
Tulane 0

UAB 2
Rice 1
UTSA 1
UTEP 1
Southern Miss 1 (in one poll)
North Texas 0
LA Tech 0

North Texas played #9 Georgia last season, and we were tied with them 21-21 in the 3rd quarter.

I'm talking ranked at the end of the season. Anyone can be ranked at some point, especially early in the season, and fall apart (classic example USF in 2007 starting 6-0 and #2 in the country and finishing 9-4 and unranked. Closer to home, UH was ranked #23 in 2010 after 2 weeks. Unfortunately we finished 5-7 showing the idiocy of saying you played a ranked team based on early season rankings) Georgia finished 8-5 and unranked so I didn't count them.

And I love the "we were close late in the game" arguments. Unfortunately a game is 4 quarters. UNT lost by 24, but you don't mention that. Losing by more than 3 TDs is a blowout, no matter how the game went. UTSA likes to say they were only down by 3 in the 4th quarter to UH last year too. Too bad they lost by 31.

But if we wanted to use similar logic, UH could say we blew out Rice. After all, we were ahead by 3 scores with 11 minutes to go in the game. But in reality, we only won by 5. So see how stupid that sounds?

Okay, now I understand how you were presenting your information, and you are right, the game is 4 quarters. We shouldn't split hairs.

The future AAC West did play more teams that finished in the top 25, but just like the teams in C-USA West, they didn't win any of those games. Congratulations.

(05-31-2014 06:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 05:09 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 03:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 03:25 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The strength of a division is the sum of all of its teams, not just one program. Houston had a good season last year, but overall, I don't see where either division looks much better then the other. C-USA has a few more programs that are down right now, but I don't expect Southern Miss or LA Tech to stay down for long. Navy in the AAC West makes zero sense from a geographic standpoint, but they will help SMU with their attendance every other year.

One team doesn't make a division, but the 3 worst records are CUSA. Then throw in the schedule differences. AAC west teams played more top 25 teams and they played less teams in the bottom rung.

Memphis played 3 top 25
Houston 3
SMU 2
Navy 2
Tulsa 1
Tulane 0

UAB 2
Rice 1
UTSA 1
UTEP 1
Southern Miss 1 (in one poll)
North Texas 0
LA Tech 0

North Texas played #9 Georgia last season, and we were tied with them 21-21 in the 3rd quarter.

I'm talking ranked at the end of the season. Anyone can be ranked at some point, especially early in the season, and fall apart (classic example USF in 2007 starting 6-0 and #2 in the country and finishing 9-4 and unranked. Closer to home, UH was ranked #23 in 2010 after 2 weeks. Unfortunately we finished 5-7 showing the idiocy of saying you played a ranked team based on early season rankings) Georgia finished 8-5 and unranked so I didn't count them.

And I love the "we were close late in the game" arguments. Unfortunately a game is 4 quarters. UNT lost by 24, but you don't mention that. Losing by more than 3 TDs is a blowout, no matter how the game went. UTSA likes to say they were only down by 3 in the 4th quarter to UH last year too. Too bad they lost by 31.

But if we wanted to use similar logic, UH could say we blew out Rice. After all, we were ahead by 3 scores with 11 minutes to go in the game. But in reality, we only won by 5. So see how stupid that sounds?

Okay, now I understand how you were presenting your information, and you are right, the game is 4 quarters. We shouldn't split hairs.

The future AAC West did play more teams that finished in the top 25, but just like the teams in C-USA West, they didn't win any of those games. Congratulations.

Yes, none of us won those games, but the OP said that CUSA West was as good as AAC West based off record. If AAC teams played 1-3 less top 25 teams and played 6-6 teams or more likely 1-11/2-10 teams, you can add 1-3 wins to most of the AAC West records if you adjust based on SOS.

(05-31-2014 06:30 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I think LA Tech might have been able to beat Memphis.

Doubtful; they couldn't beat Tulsa at home.
I think they'll be a lot better this year. Holtz will have that D improved, and they'll probably try to run the football. They'll probably look a lot like we did in 2013: play good D, but struggle at QB.