(12-19-2014 04:32 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 10:09 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 09:20 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 05:22 PM)goherd24herdfans Wrote:  This. The end. Some fairy dust computer or other made up numbers don't make us better than the AAC. No matter how much we want that to be true. Their bottom and our bottom are equally bad, but the mid tier in AAC and top tier are overall better than cusa in both areas.

Your view is based on perception however the reality for this year is there was very little to seperate the conferences overall. Take the name and team colors off the schools and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
C-USA exceeded expectations this year; the AAC? not so much.

Perception is that matters in College football. Tulsa, SMU, and Uconn have committed large amounts of resources to getting better. In the end this will separate the bottom of the AAC and other G5 conferences imo.

That's why they play the games; and the difference between the two conferences this year is razor thin.

Thats biased perception. Not true.

And Tulsa is in a slump like USM. They used to be a big player in cusa. They wont be down for long. SMU can be decent as well and has money to buy success. Uconn is uconn, but still a more recognizable name than 90% or maybe all of cusa.