(10-21-2013 08:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 02:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If the conference had just added Houston and UCF I wonder I'd they would have lost the AQ status?

b/c the word "Power" in "Power 5" has nothing to do with Power on the football field. It's all political bull. The AAC is a pretty decent collection of athletic programs but lacks a big "name" draw for TV or Bowl games.

We'll agree to disagree. Temple, SMU, and Memphis are football liabilities and all of the future adds are below the bar.

liabilities? right. you are ignorant and it shows in that comment. Memphis and SMU are / have / and will invest tons of money to insure they are competing at the highest level. People criticize Tulane add, and looks like they could win CUSA. People begged for Tulsa, and they might as well have canceled their season they are so bad.

anyway, i think youre not smart

ECU a future add below the bar? Are you kidding me?

SMU has gone to 4 straight bowl games. I will take that liability any day.

What a maroon.

First, it was just an in-conference game. Whats supposed to be happening this time of year. Wins against major SEC, B10 powerhouses will be much more important.

Second, we're only 6 weeks in... so I'd hesitate to use the term 'conference defining'. That's still to come.

Third, the BCS bowl (or not) will define the AAC. It does not matter which school makes the game... with the exception that it's much better for the AAC if a 'sticking' team wins. Less so if LV wins, then bails to the ACC. Much less.

All that said, was still an awesome win for UCF who deserve huge props... and a VERY good moment for the AAC.

(10-22-2013 10:41 AM)Bull Wrote:  First, it was just an in-conference game. Whats supposed to be happening this time of year. Wins against major SEC, B10 powerhouses will be much more important.

Second, we're only 6 weeks in... so I'd hesitate to use the term 'conference defining'. That's still to come.

Third, the BCS bowl (or not) will define the AAC. It does not matter which school makes the game... with the exception that it's much better for the AAC if a 'sticking' team wins. Less so if LV wins, then bails to the ACC. Much less.

All that said, was still an awesome win for UCF who deserve huge props... and a VERY good moment for the AAC.

WVU mopped up in BCS bowls. Didn't help the BE perception much. AAC needs to have a couple of schools who regularly get ranked and to regularly get one team in the top 10. Perception is formed for the most part on the top of the conference but not just one school. Boise is Boise, not the MWC or WAC or Sun Belt or Big West. But when the MWC had BYU, Utah and TCU, they were on the verge of getting some respect. Then they all left.

(10-22-2013 09:42 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 08:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 02:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If the conference had just added Houston and UCF I wonder I'd they would have lost the AQ status?

b/c the word "Power" in "Power 5" has nothing to do with Power on the football field. It's all political bull. The AAC is a pretty decent collection of athletic programs but lacks a big "name" draw for TV or Bowl games.

We'll agree to disagree. Temple, SMU, and Memphis are football liabilities and all of the future adds are below the bar.

liabilities? right. you are ignorant and it shows in that comment. Memphis and SMU are / have / and will invest tons of money to insure they are competing at the highest level. People criticize Tulane add, and looks like they could win CUSA. People begged for Tulsa, and they might as well have canceled their season they are so bad.

anyway, i think youre not smart

Sorry to hurt your feelings but none of the teams I mentioned can play with the average teams in the big conferences consistently.

For example, an average Ole Miss team has far greater depth than any of those teams and would win 9/10 games against them. A decent Wazzu would do the same, and many others.

Adding these other schools, including SMU, has brought the level of the conference down considerably.

BTW, ignorant has nothing to do with ones mental capacity, smart. So, don't be an idiot.

You haven't been paying attention if you think "Power" means power on the football field. NOTHING (available) was going to help the AAC retain an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, even Boise State and that was a proven fact.

(10-22-2013 10:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 10:41 AM)Bull Wrote:  First, it was just an in-conference game. Whats supposed to be happening this time of year. Wins against major SEC, B10 powerhouses will be much more important.

Second, we're only 6 weeks in... so I'd hesitate to use the term 'conference defining'. That's still to come.

Third, the BCS bowl (or not) will define the AAC. It does not matter which school makes the game... with the exception that it's much better for the AAC if a 'sticking' team wins. Less so if LV wins, then bails to the ACC. Much less.

All that said, was still an awesome win for UCF who deserve huge props... and a VERY good moment for the AAC.

WVU mopped up in BCS bowls. Didn't help the BE perception much. AAC needs to have a couple of schools who regularly get ranked and to regularly get one team in the top 10. Perception is formed for the most part on the top of the conference but not just one school. Boise is Boise, not the MWC or WAC or Sun Belt or Big West. But when the MWC had BYU, Utah and TCU, they were on the verge of getting some respect. Then they all left.

Yeah. I'd say you pretty much right. The AAC needs a group of 4-5 teams to be generally solid enough that one or two of them is typically ranked at the end of each season. The AAC just needs the other 7-8 teams to just not be horrible and maybe even contribute a darkhorse candidate to the conference race every year. If the league has a group of teams that are consistant winners, then the TV contract that shows most AAC games nationally will allow there to be a perception of some strength in the league. A bottom that can provide an annual surprise team prevents the bottom of the league from being completely dismissed.

The top will need to perform well in its bowls, but if over time the league can finish with a couple of ranked teams each year (especially if they consistently come from the same 4-5 names), then the AAC can maybe develop a nice perception and audience for itself among college football fans. Its not likely to ever be seen as a "power" conference. But it could get to the point where it does become the "challenger" conference that Aresco envisions (a kind of tweener conference if you will).

(10-22-2013 11:04 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You haven't been paying attention if you think "Power" means power on the football field. NOTHING (available) was going to help the AAC retain an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, even Boise State and that was a proven fact.

Maybe so. The problem now is the AAC is on CUSA's level for the most part.

It's a shame that the conference swamped itself with low level programs that really weren't ready to move up. The result is a conference that has slipped considerably and is in no way competitive with the big conferences.

At least three teams will have to carry the AAC for several years.

(10-22-2013 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:04 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You haven't been paying attention if you think "Power" means power on the football field. NOTHING (available) was going to help the AAC retain an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, even Boise State and that was a proven fact.

Maybe so. The problem now is the AAC is on CUSA's level for the most part.

It's a shame that the conference swamped itself with low level programs that really weren't ready to move up. The result is a conference that has slipped considerably and is in no way competitive with the big conferences.

At least three teams will have to carry the AAC for several years.

So you're saying that this lineup:
UC, UCF, UConn, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Temple, USF, ECU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy

is equal to this:

FAU, FIU, Marshall, MTSU, Southern Miss, UAB, LT, North Texas, Rice, UTEP and UTSA?

Spoken like someone who wants to be in the AAC.

The fact is every team in the AAC will continue to invest in and improve their programs and, yes, move on to a better-paying conference if called - unless - the AAC can work out a better TV deal in the future. We do however, need ~3 teams to separate themselves from the pack and compete nationally.

These teams will be very competitive and entertaining - and the basketball lineup should place 5-6 teams in the NCAA tourney every year.

(10-22-2013 11:26 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:04 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You haven't been paying attention if you think "Power" means power on the football field. NOTHING (available) was going to help the AAC retain an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, even Boise State and that was a proven fact.

Maybe so. The problem now is the AAC is on CUSA's level for the most part.

It's a shame that the conference swamped itself with low level programs that really weren't ready to move up. The result is a conference that has slipped considerably and is in no way competitive with the big conferences.

At least three teams will have to carry the AAC for several years.

So you're saying that this lineup:
UC, UCF, UConn, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Temple, USF, ECU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy

is equal to this:

FAU, FIU, Marshall, MTSU, Southern Miss, UAB, LT, North Texas, Rice, UTEP and UTSA?

Spoken like someone who wants to be in the AAC.

The fact is every team in the AAC will continue to invest in and improve their programs and, yes, move on to a better-paying conference if called - unless - the AAC can work out a better TV deal in the future. We do however, need ~3 teams to separate themselves from the pack and compete nationally.

These teams will be very competitive and entertaining - and the basketball lineup should place 5-6 teams in the NCAA tourney every year.

It's closer to C-USA than it is to any of the power conferences. Sorry to burst your bubble.

As a conference only two or three teams are competitive; the rest are homecoming games.

Why would I want Alabama to be in the AAC?

(10-22-2013 11:26 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  These teams will be very competitive and entertaining - and the basketball lineup should place 5-6 teams in the NCAA tourney every year.

Agreed with all of your post except this. 5-6 teams is EXTREMELY optimistic. I'm thinking 3-4 teams get into the NCAA tourney from the AAC. We'll probably average a little That said 3 to 4 bids from an 11 team basketball conference is a heck of a lot better than a single (absolute max 2) bid from a 14 team CUSA.

The problem is for CUSA- All of their teams just about are homecoming games. 8 of their 12 teams next year are ranked in Sagarin 99 or worse. ODU and Charlotte are as well. So, 10 of 14. With 3 more between 74-98. So 13/14 teams are 74 or worse. Only Marshall at a riveting 63 isn't. Granted 63 is between Cincy and West Virginia right now :)

(10-22-2013 11:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's closer to C-USA than it is to any of the power conferences. Sorry to burst your bubble.

As a conference only two or three teams are competitive; the rest are homecoming games.

Why would I want Alabama to be in the AAC?

So why the Ragin Cajuns avatar?

Anyway.... Houston, UCF, Tulsa & Cincy all have recent (or current) in the top 25. Tulsa was probably the most consistent program in CUSA. Navy & ECU make regular bowl appearances. It's actually going to be a pretty competitive league in football. Basketball will be far superior to any other G5 conference as well. You can't just ignore that.

(10-22-2013 11:39 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:26 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  These teams will be very competitive and entertaining - and the basketball lineup should place 5-6 teams in the NCAA tourney every year.

Agreed with all of your post except this. 5-6 teams is EXTREMELY optimistic. I'm thinking 3-4 teams get into the NCAA tourney from the AAC. We'll probably average a little That said 3 to 4 bids from an 11 team basketball conference is a heck of a lot better than a single (absolute max 2) bid from a 14 team CUSA.

Its going to be a 5 bid conference for the AAC.

Cincinnati, Memphis, Connecticut and Temple are walking NCAA tournament berths and whoever else steps up like Tulsa or UCF to compete with them will earn a bid, IMO.

(10-22-2013 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:04 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You haven't been paying attention if you think "Power" means power on the football field. NOTHING (available) was going to help the AAC retain an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, even Boise State and that was a proven fact.

Maybe so. The problem now is the AAC is on CUSA's level for the most part.

It's a shame that the conference swamped itself with low level programs that really weren't ready to move up. The result is a conference that has slipped considerably and is in no way competitive with the big conferences.

At least three teams will have to carry the AAC for several years.

Not even close. AAC is the 6th ranked conference followed by MWC.
CUSA is #10.

I've mentioned this a couple times about the AAC. Now that the private universities have broken off there won't be any major football/basketball schisms that tear a conference apart; everyone is mostly united.

http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...ild-week-8

Billingsley’s Conference Comparison
http://www.cfrc.com/Ratings_2013/CC_8.htm

SEC Pac-12 Big 10 ACC Big 12 American Ind FBS S Belt MWC MAC CUSA FCS
SEC 35-7 0.738740 1-1 1-0 2-2 2-1 2-2 0-0 7-1 1-0 6-0 5-0 8-0
Pac-12 30-6 0.738275 1-1 3-2 2-0 0-0 0-0 4-2 0-0 10-0 0-0 1-0 9-1
Big 10 36-11 0.669080 0-1 2-3 2-0 1-0 3-2 2-3 0-0 4-0 11-2 1-0 10-0
ACC 34-10 0.659252 2-2 0-2 0-2 1-0 3-0 4-1 1-1 2-0 1-1 7-1 13-0
Big 12 22-8 0.615011 1-2 0-0 0-1 0-1 2-0 2-1 5-0 0-0 2-0 4-1 6-2
American 19-20 0.435846 2-2 0-0 2-3 0-3 0-2 1-3 1-0 0-1 4-1 4-2 5-3
Ind FBS 17-25 0.420629 0-0 2-4 3-2 1-4 1-2 3-1 0-2 2-4 1-3 2-3 2-0
S Belt 16-19 0.417675 1-7 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-5 0-1 2-0 1-0 2-0 3-1 6-4
MWC 18-23 0.416733 0-1 0-10 0-4 0-2 0-0 1-0 4-2 0-1 1-0 3-2 9-1
MAC 20-32 0.365385 0-6 0-0 2-11 1-1 0-2 1-4 3-1 0-2 0-1 3-2 10-2
CUSA 18-34 0.334644 0-5 0-1 0-1 1-7 1-4 2-4 3-2 1-3 2-3 2-3 6-1
FCS 14-84 0.188731 0-8 1-9 0-10 0-13 2-6 3-5 0-2 4-6 1-9 2-10 1-6

(10-22-2013 11:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:26 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:04 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You haven't been paying attention if you think "Power" means power on the football field. NOTHING (available) was going to help the AAC retain an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, even Boise State and that was a proven fact.

Maybe so. The problem now is the AAC is on CUSA's level for the most part.

It's a shame that the conference swamped itself with low level programs that really weren't ready to move up. The result is a conference that has slipped considerably and is in no way competitive with the big conferences.

At least three teams will have to carry the AAC for several years.

So you're saying that this lineup:
UC, UCF, UConn, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Temple, USF, ECU, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy

is equal to this:

FAU, FIU, Marshall, MTSU, Southern Miss, UAB, LT, North Texas, Rice, UTEP and UTSA?

Spoken like someone who wants to be in the AAC.

The fact is every team in the AAC will continue to invest in and improve their programs and, yes, move on to a better-paying conference if called - unless - the AAC can work out a better TV deal in the future. We do however, need ~3 teams to separate themselves from the pack and compete nationally.

These teams will be very competitive and entertaining - and the basketball lineup should place 5-6 teams in the NCAA tourney every year.

It's closer to C-USA than it is to any of the power conferences. Sorry to burst your bubble.

As a conference only two or three teams are competitive; the rest are homecoming games.

Why would I want Alabama to be in the AAC?

I was referring to your Cajuns reference, not Tide.

The AAC does fall between the P5 and C-USA teams, but I believe closer to the P5, based on bowl and OOC wins. Except for a few upsets, I'm sure every team in the AAC would win against comparable C-USA teams.

UC, UCF, Houston and ECU can all compete nationally - and have won against brand name programs. Only time will tell if the other teams in the AAC move onto the national stage.

(10-21-2013 01:19 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Yes, beating the only team in the AAC with an outside shot of playing for a national title and/or having a player win the Heisman was a BRILLIANT move for the AAC this year. Well done. Bravo.

I agree ... what was lost would have been at best a break-even to the AAC this year, since most discussion of the success of Louisville would repeat that its moving to the ACC next year ...

... and a long term loss, since the performance of every AAC champion for years would be compared to Louisville's performance.

By contrast, what was won was both a net benefit this year and a long term benefit

So while it wouldn't ordinarily be to the benefit of a conference to see the only team with an outside shot at the national title and the only team with a player in the Heisman running get beaten ... when its a footloose team on its way out the door, that's not an ordinary circumstance.

As far as football conference ratings, I looked at Sagarin, which is now rated by division rather than conference wide for two-division conference, with central-weighted averages, and that yields:

1 SEC-WEST
2. PAC-12(NORTH)
3 SEC-EAST
4 PAC-12(SOUTH)
5 BIG 12
6 BIG TEN-LEGENDS
7 BIG TEN-LEADERS
8 ACC-COASTAL
9 ACC-ATLANTIC
10 AMERICAN ATHLETIC
11 MWC-MOUNTAIN
12 MWC-WEST
13 I-A INDEPENDENTS
14 CONFERENCE USA-WEST
15 MAC-WEST
16 MAC-EAST
17 CONFERENCE USA-EAST
18 SUN BELT

Taking the simple average of the individual division ratings, its:

81.5 - 1. SEC
80.1 - 2. PAC-12 (-1.4)
78.5 - 3. Big12 (-1.6)
75.6 - 4. Big10 (-2.9)
73.6 - 5. ACC (-2.0)
67.9 - 6. AAC (-5.7)
64.7 - 7. MWC (-3.2)
60.5 - 8. CUSA (-4.2)
60.1 - 9. MAC (-0.4)
59.1 - 10. Sunbelt (-1.0)

On that, the gap between the AAC and next year's P5 conference is bigger than the gap between the AAC and the Mountain West, but smaller than the gap between the AAC and the CUSA that so many of the AAC schools originated from.