(09-01-2014 08:13 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 01:26 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  But with UTSA doing pretty good for such a young program, are they a legitimate AAC potential expansion target with a second Texas school as a partner?

quality post. real quality. you are a freakin genius. what school do you pull for anyway? are you to embarrassed to even put them in your avatar. you are the best man.

He is a Texas Tech poster. TexasfuggingTech.

well that explains volumes

Since a number of AAC schools are still trying to dispel reputations like "Drive Through U" and "Coog High", UTSA's academics are going to be a big negative, even if you accept UTSA arguments that USNWR underrates them on this measure and that metric.

You want additions that raise your average, not additions that match your lower-half (if you can help it--if you get raided and need a replacement fast, you can't be as choosy.)

(09-01-2014 08:13 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 01:26 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  But with UTSA doing pretty good for such a young program, are they a legitimate AAC potential expansion target with a second Texas school as a partner?

quality post. real quality. you are a freakin genius. what school do you pull for anyway? are you to embarrassed to even put them in your avatar. you are the best man.

He is a Texas Tech poster. TexasfuggingTech.

I have never seen somebody so off...

(08-31-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  But with UTSA doing pretty good for such a young program, are they a legitimate AAC potential expansion target with a second Texas school as a partner?

Ah, no

(09-01-2014 10:11 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 08:13 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 01:26 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  But with UTSA doing pretty good for such a young program, are they a legitimate AAC potential expansion target with a second Texas school as a partner?

quality post. real quality. you are a freakin genius. what school do you pull for anyway? are you to embarrassed to even put them in your avatar. you are the best man.

He is a Texas Tech poster. TexasfuggingTech.

I have never seen somebody so off...

OK, then Syracuse then. Same thing.

Looks like it was a tough weekend for everyone in the Group of 5.

http://g5comealive.sportsblog.com/posts/...urday.html

(08-31-2014 10:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  If you want a decent football program, sure.

If you want a credible academic institution, RUN.

AAC has some top end academic quality, but how does the bottom stack up?

Pretty well, all except Memphis are ranked USNWR tier 1. All are major research institutions. All have >$400 mil endowments, other than UCF (relatively young school), Temple, ECU, and Memphis. 5 are >$1 bil.

UTSA would be the worst ranked school by far, with the smallest endowment (in 2012, it was <$100 mil). Worst graduation rates (granted, UH isn't great in this department either, but we're still way ahead of UTSA), worst grad schools, worst admission standards. All by a wide margin.

Then leave the academics to the AAC and the football to the MW.....UTSA to MW makes more sense.

UTSA belongs just as much as USF, UCF, Houston, ECU, etc...when did expansion EVERbecome about academics and endowments. The answer is NEVER. Hell, it's not even about winning or Maryland would not be in the BIG or Cuse in the AAC.

It is about eyes on the boob tube. And UTSA is smack in the middle of the 9th biggest city in AMERICA with no professional FB competition. They live in fertile recruiting grounds and have a huge student body clamouring for football. They are supported by their city media more than UH or Temple.

I hoped they would get invited. The only drawback is what happens when Coker leaves for retirement. Is their AD good at hiring coaches? Or do they have a dimwit like we do in that area.

BTW, great game Roadrunner. You already destroyed my season hopes.

(08-31-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  But with UTSA doing pretty good for such a young program, are they a legitimate AAC potential expansion target with a second Texas school as a partner?

What exactly are you doing here? You should be championing UTSA to the ACC.

(09-01-2014 09:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Since a number of AAC schools are still trying to dispel reputations like "Drive Through U" and "Coog High", UTSA's academics are going to be a big negative, even if you accept UTSA arguments that USNWR underrates them on this measure and that metric.

You want additions that raise your average, not additions that match your lower-half (if you can help it--if you get raided and need a replacement fast, you can't be as choosy.)

The acceptance number on USNWR is outdated, nothing more. Noone said anything about being underrated. Look for yourself they have a number for Fall 2012, we are in 2014.

(09-01-2014 12:44 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Looks like it was a tough weekend for everyone in the Group of 5.

http://g5comealive.sportsblog.com/posts/...urday.html

Quote:the rest of the Group of 5 was easily handled by the Power 5, including surprise blow out losses by Fresno State, SMU, North Texas and Rice.

Those were surprise blowouts?

(09-01-2014 10:11 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 08:13 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 01:26 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  But with UTSA doing pretty good for such a young program, are they a legitimate AAC potential expansion target with a second Texas school as a partner?

quality post. real quality. you are a freakin genius. what school do you pull for anyway? are you to embarrassed to even put them in your avatar. you are the best man.

He is a Texas Tech poster. TexasfuggingTech.

I have never seen somebody so off...

john01192, you are a Texas tech fan?? No wonder you re so worried about keeping AAC down...you guys are the most vulnerable if conference realignment ever comes again: 100% stable for good: SEC, Big 10, PAC. 80% stable: ACC. 50/50: Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma will always land somewhere good no matter what. The other 8 ars in big trouble with Texas Tech, WV and Kansas st tied for last academically among those 8 and tech has the least to offer out of those bottom 3. Good luck.

If you don't want to overreact, then don't. This thread is silly and based on one game.

(08-31-2014 10:30 PM)Cougar King Wrote:  Don't feed the troll guys.

Lmao, anyone else see the irony in this?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

John. Show us on the doll where aresco touched you.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-02-2014 10:43 AM)shere khan Wrote:  John. Show us on the doll where aresco touched you.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App