AAC P6 Campaign working?

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

.beat Oklahoma (who honestly is the Kansas of football) then....

That's such an absurd comment. Since 2000, Oklahoma has finished in the top 6 in the country 10 times. They have finished in the top 25 in 15 of the last 17 seasons. They have been the most consistent majorly successful team in the country this century.

You realize only 4 teams have won multiple national championships in that time? They have played in 3 national championships in the last 17 seasons, including winning 1 of them. Going 1-2 in national title games doesn't mean you can't win the big one or are a choking program.

They've been the best program this century.

 

[All4TheHerd]

That's such an absurd comment. Since 2000, Oklahoma has finished in the top 6 in the country 10 times. They have finished in the top 25 in 15 of the last 17 seasons. They have been the most consistent majorly successful team in the country this century.

You realize only 4 teams have won multiple national championships in that time? They have played in 3 national championships in the last 17 seasons, including winning 1 of them. Going 1-2 in national title games doesn't mean you can't win the big one or are a choking program.

They've been the best program this century.

1 National title since 2000. Prior to that, 1 in 1985. 7 claimed total. They've also been on the receiving end of some pretty notably bad losses.

Top 6 in the country 10 times...top 25 for 17 seasons?? HAHA! Nobody gives a damn about that from their level of football!
Stating about that meaningless crap is like losing in Chess but bragging you got more pieces.
In the end, it matters not.
I bet you think wvu was a better team because they had better stats than LSU, despite being so badly demolished on the scoreboard.

Oklahoma is the team who, like Kansas in basketball, does real well in the regular season then can collapse under their own pressure from someone they shouldn't even be on the field with.

I will give you this, they are the best in the Big 12, but lately, that isn't saying much.

 

[HerdFan76]

MU is winning 10 games this year and Oklahoma is a nobody in college football.

At least he keeps the board entertaining.

 

[All4TheHerd]

MU is winning 10 games this year and Oklahoma is a nobody in college football.

At least he keeps the board entertaining.

Yes, I said OU ia a nobody in college football.
You can't possibly be this hard headed...

I said at OU's level of football its National Title or bust...same with Kansas basketball...and their level is beyond MU's and always will be.
Do you honestly think OU fans really care about how many times they are ranked in the top 25?
Do Clemson fans care now that they have won a NC how often they are ranked?
Bragging about things like that on the level of OU is below their standards.
Consistent rankings in the top 25 and things not "National Titles" belong to the G5 and mid level P5's...the NC States, wvu's, Baylor's, Houston's, Marshall's, Boise State's, and such...its because while "everyone" in the P5 has a shot...realistically maybe 16 teams are actually truly considered each year.

So, for that, OU has below par considering their standards...as having reached the pinnacle of college football. Anything less is counter-productive.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

Top 6 in the country 10 times..?? HAHA! Nobody gives a damn about that from their level of football!

It's good that ADs aren't as clueless as you. Regardless of what program you are at, finishing in the top 6 in the country 10 out of 17 seasons is damn impressive. Add in that they never had a bad year over the other 7 years and it is even more impressive.

If their fans didn't care about that and only cared about winning 1 title in 17 years, do you not think they would have been picketing outside of the president's office for the last 16 years?

 

[PullmanFinger]

It's good that ADs aren't as clueless as you. Regardless of what program you are at, finishing in the top 6 in the country 10 out of 17 seasons is damn impressive. Add in that they never had a bad year over the other 7 years and it is even more impressive.

If their fans didn't care about that and only cared about winning 1 title in 17 years, do you not think they would have been picketing outside of the president's office for the last 16 years?

I agree, and do you ever notice those fans who argue for their teams by how they do per season, yet against other teams for the same reason? For example 'national titles are all that matters' when talking about other teams and how irrelevant they are, but to argue for their own team 'we beat so and so in the ACC, Big 12, etc, and we still get no respect".... cant have it both ways.

That being said, the AAC is nothing more than we are. I am sick of hearing about it. If we run the table in CUSA with our usual non conference schedule then we have a good chance to get in. At least the same chance as we would as 12-0 in the AAC. One loss for us in EITHER conference you can forget about it. Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

That being said, the AAC is nothing more than we are. I .

AAC is substantially better on the field and substantially better off the field. Does that mean they have a substantially easier path to the playoffs? No. But the AAC definitely isn't the same as C-USA.

 

[Herd Fever]

Maybe off the field and on the basketball court but the AAC has yet to prove they can compete head to head with CUSA or the Mountain West on the football field.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Maybe off the field and on the basketball court but the AAC has yet to prove they can compete head to head with CUSA or the Mountain West on the football field.

AAC vs. C-USA:

2013: 4-2 (37.5 - 16.5)
2014: 1-3 (17.5 - 34.3)
2015: 3-3 (29.0 - 22.7)
2016: 3-2 (42.2 - 30.8)

The AAC has a winning record against C-USA and has dominated the average point spread. The average score of all of the games between the AAC and C-USA is 32.4 - 25.0. Yet you claim that the "AAC has yet to prove they can compete head to head with CUSA"? Brilliant.

AAC vs. MW:

2013: 0-1 (51 - 52)
2014: 1-2 (28.3 - 31.3)
2015: 2-1 (26.7 - 24.7)
2016: 2-2 (29.3 - 28.3)

The AAC is 1 game under .500 against the MW with a 52-51 game being the difference between the AAC having a winning record against them. The average score of all games between the AAC and MW is 30.3 - 30.3. In other words, the on-field action has been about as close as possibly could be expected. Yet you claim that the AAC has yet to prove they can compete head to head with CUSA. Brilliant.

So, based on those facts, what makes you think the bullshit that you posted?

 

[oldeherd]

Point spreads are essentially meaningless especially when there are very few inter conference games involved. Say 5 CUSA--AAC games a season; CUSA wins 4 of them in close contests, 3 or 4 points per game. In the 5th game, AAC blows out its CUSA foe by 50 or so. Thus AAC has a large edge in cumulative point spreads, but lost 80 per cent of its games against CUSA teams. Point spread margin says nothing vis-a-vis relative conference football strength.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Point spreads are essentially meaningless especially when there are very few inter conference games involved. Say 5 CUSA--AAC games a season; CUSA wins 4 of them in close contests, 3 or 4 points per game. In the 5th game, AAC blows out its CUSA foe by 50 or so. Thus AAC has a large edge in cumulative point spreads, but lost 80 per cent of its games against CUSA teams. Point spread margin says nothing vis-a-vis relative conference football strength.

Fair point to an extent. Over a large sample, it has more relevance.

Now, would you like to focus on Fever's statement and the head-to-head records of AAC vs. C-USA/MW?

 

[oldeherd]

Fair point to an extent. Over a large sample, it has more relevance.

Now, would you like to focus on Fever's statement and the head-to-head records of AAC vs. C-USA/MW?

Y.A.G., as your league head to head comparisons show, for the 4 years cited, the overall CUSA record versus AAC is 10-11. To me, the statistical sample is too small to make a valid comparison of the relative league strength overall.

Also, to be more valid, if the inter conference games were more across the spectrum of the two conferences, top teams vs. top teams, middle of pack teams versus middle of pack teams, etc., it would perhaps increase overall validity. Three MAC versus CUSA games a season, say, perhaps EMU vs. Charlotte, Kent vs. FIU, Ball State vs. FAU would more than likely end up telling us which conference has the better bottom feeders, but little more.

A more valid means of testing the relative strengths of the leagues would be to schedule something like the ACC-Big 10 challenge in basketball with all teams in each league playing a foe from the other conference.

 

[i am herdman]

Opinions don't change facts.

Fact - AAC & CUSA have equal access to college football playoff.
Fact - Roy Kramer & Co. do not care about either conference.
Fact - I'd prefer to play ECU & UCF but not at the expense of moving laterally for football.

That is not a lateral move. Following your logic why wouldn't Marshall just go back to the MAC and save some money and expenses. Cut back on travel and have some natural rivalries instead of playing a hodge podge stung out league?

 

[i am herdman]

MU is winning 10 games this year and Oklahoma is a nobody in college football.

At least he keeps the board entertaining.

I love of our fans but man they are strung out on green meth or something sometimes.

Oklahoma is the Kansas of football. LMAO

I give old Stoops a hard time sometimes(he is gone now anyway) but Oklahoma is one of the most storied programs of all time.

 

[Chris McLaughlin]

I love of our fans but man they are strung out on green meth or something sometimes.

Oklahoma is the Kansas of football. LMAO

I give old Stoops a hard time sometimes(he is gone now anyway) but Oklahoma is one of the most storied programs of all time.

I actually think the analogy makes a lot of sense. Oklahoma is always highly ranked in the pre-season. They are always talented. And they usually do lose a game or two they shouldn't. That's a lot like Kansas basketball.

It's the "OU is a nobody in college football" bit that is bananas.

 

[PullmanFinger]

AAC vs. C-USA:

2013: 4-2 (37.5 - 16.5)
2014: 1-3 (17.5 - 34.3)
2015: 3-3 (29.0 - 22.7)
2016: 3-2 (42.2 - 30.8)

The AAC has a winning record against C-USA and has dominated the average point spread. The average score of all of the games between the AAC and C-USA is 32.4 - 25.0. Yet you claim that the "AAC has yet to prove they can compete head to head with CUSA"? Brilliant.

AAC vs. MW:

2013: 0-1 (51 - 52)
2014: 1-2 (28.3 - 31.3)
2015: 2-1 (26.7 - 24.7)
2016: 2-2 (29.3 - 28.3)

The AAC is 1 game under .500 against the MW with a 52-51 game being the difference between the AAC having a winning record against them. The average score of all games between the AAC and MW is 30.3 - 30.3. In other words, the on-field action has been about as close as possibly could be expected. Yet you claim that the AAC has yet to prove they can compete head to head with CUSA. Brilliant.

So, based on those facts, what makes you think the bullshit that you posted?

AAC is 11-10 against CUSA. Get over the obsession with us jumping conferences again

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

Y.A.G., as your league head to head comparisons show, for the 4 years cited, the overall CUSA record versus AAC is 10-11. To me, the statistical sample is too small to make a valid comparison of the relative league strength overall.

.

That's fine, but that does nothing to support fever's comment which is what I used the stats to disprove.

The stats show that fever's comment was foolish.

AAC is 11-10 against CUSA. Get over the obsession with us jumping conferences again

Nobody has an obsession, moron. Learn to read a thread. Somebody claimed that the AAC hasn't shown that it can compete with C-USA or the MW on the field. In over 30 games with those conferences, the AAC has entirely shown it can compete (and even be better than) those conferences.

 

[PullmanFinger]

That's fine, but that does nothing to support fever's comment which is what I used the stats to disprove.

The stats show that fever's comment was foolish.



Nobody has an obsession, moron. Learn to read a thread. Somebody claimed that the AAC hasn't shown that it can compete with C-USA or the MW on the field. In over 30 games with those conferences, the AAC has entirely shown it can compete (and even be better than) those conferences.

There have been PLENTY of threads obsessing about the AAC moron.. what's his name must have got at you

 

[All4TheHerd]

I actually think the analogy makes a lot of sense. Oklahoma is always highly ranked in the pre-season. They are always talented. And they usually do lose a game or two they shouldn't. That's a lot like Kansas basketball.

It's the "OU is a nobody in college football" bit that is bananas.

I don't think I ever said OU is a nobody. They aren't...and they lose games they should win...and sadly, its often on a big stage.

As to why they didn't line up outside the AD's office and Stoops stayed for so long, well, what makes you think they didn't?
Why else did Stoops up and quit?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

There have been PLENTY of threads obsessing about the AAC moron.. what's his name must have got at you

The AAC is a better conference on the field and a far better conference off of the field. We would take that opportunity in a minute. That doesn't mean anyone is obsessing over making the move. Further, you quoted my post and said "stop obsessing with us jumping conferences again." That is a comment to me, hence the reason for me saying nobody is obsessing over it. Calling somebody a "moron" when you're the one looking like a fool doesn't work.

and they lose games they should win...and sadly, its often on a big stage.

Any team that is ranked in the top 5 loses games it should win. When you are that highly ranked, you are a favorite in almost every game. That means you have a higher number of opportunities to lose games you should win. Ohio State, Alabama, etc. all lose games "they should win" based on who is favored. The fact that Oklahoma has been the most consistent top team this century shows they aren't losing games they should win anymore than any other team in that time-frame.

As to why they didn't line up outside the AD's office and Stoops stayed for so long, well, what makes you think they didn't?
Why else did Stoops up and quit?

You think Stoops resigned after going 11-2 in three of the last four years and having a loaded team back again this year with a Heisman candidate QB? Christ. Where do some of you people come from? You think people were lining up outside the AD's office trying to get Stoops out? My god. You people should be banned from ever discussing sports again.

 

[PullmanFinger]

Far better conference off the field... I keep reading that. No one cares what happens off the field. If they did then other schools wouldn't be in their conferences.. see chapel hill and morganhole. The money is in football. And the aac is barely a step up. We can drool over that move when we can dominate our own conference, which in case you haven't noticed- isn't happening.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Far better conference off the field... I keep reading that. No one cares what happens off the field.
.

You're clueless. Off-the-field is more important for conference affiliation than on-field performance. Anyone that matters cares about what happens off of the field, as that stuff is the most important information in which teams move onto better conferences.

Look at the teams who have recently moved from the Sun Belt to C-USA, from C-USA to the AAC, etc. What was more important in those teams getting into a better conference - them dominating on the field or all of the important off-the-field intangibles they brought? Exactly.

 

[PullmanFinger]

You're clueless. Off-the-field is more important for conference affiliation than on-field performance. Anyone that matters cares about what happens off of the field, as that stuff is the most important information in which teams move onto better conferences.

Look at the teams who have recently moved from the Sun Belt to C-USA, from C-USA to the AAC, etc. What was more important in those teams getting into a better conference - them dominating on the field or all of the important off-the-field tangibles they brought? Exactly.

Really? Thats why Harvard, Rice and the likes are all in the Big 10 and SEC... got it

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Really? Thats why Harvard, Rice and the likes are all in the Big 10 and SEC... got it

Off-the-field doesn't equate to how large a school's endowment is. I don't want to spend the time to dumb this discussion down to your level, but you're in over your head in this if you think on-field performance is more important than off-field circumstances and if you think off-field refers to only a school's endowment.

 

[bbneutralfan]

You tell em Y.A.G. Si

 

[MU ATO]

P6 AAC's ECU is a 2.5 dog to 1-AA JMU.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

P6 AAC's ECU is a 2.5 dog to 1-AA JMU.

Link for your claim? Out of 20 books, I only found one that has a line for it. It has ECU as 2 point favorites.

But assume you can provide a link from a valid book for your claim. Look at what schools would be underdogs to JMU this week:

P5s:

Boston College
Purdue
Rutgers
Kansas

As numerous C-USA schools would be including . . .

Marshall
Rice
UTSA
Southern Miss
Old Dominion
North Texas
FAU
FIU
UTEP
UAB
Charlotte

Now, tell me how your comment (which hasn't been shown with a valid source yet) proves anything differently than what I said?

 

[PullmanFinger]

Off-the-field doesn't equate to how large a school's endowment is. I don't want to spend the time to dumb this discussion down to your level, but you're in over your head in this if you think on-field performance is more important than off-field circumstances and if you think off-field refers to only a school's endowment.

You're right, the money that the programs bring in from football and TV contracts (directly related to on the field performance and ticket sales and TV market) have nothing to do with it. Since I am in over my head with someone as brilliant as you, maybe we should focus on academic success and try to be the Vanderbilt of the region and see if we can slide into a P5 conference instead of the AAC.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

You're right, the money that the programs bring in from football and TV contracts (directly related to on the field performance and ticket sales and TV market) have nothing to do with it.
.

You're working the wrong way. Teams that move up to better conferences are looked at far more in what they bring off-the-field instead of their on-field performance.

Things like facilities, television market, enrollment, location, etc. (all off-field) play far more of a factor than how many games a team has won in the Sun Belt, C-USA, etc.

Your attempt to argue otherwise shows a severe lack of knowledge on the topic. When conferences look to pouch teams from smaller conferences, they don't say "well, Marshall made $200,000 from their TV contract" and make a decision based on that. Why would they? They have their own TV contract as a conference, so why would they care what Marshall (or any other team they were interested in promoting to their conference) made in a previous conference's television contract?

As I mentioned, you're over your head in this discussion.

 

[beefcake0520]

We had this same obsession with CUSA many moons ago when we were in the MAC. Though it was more warranted then due to lack of bowls, lack of money in the MAC. Not exactly the same scenario now. Money isn't a guarantee in the G5 now with TV. The AAC will command more, but how much more on a new contract is to be seen.

 

[PullmanFinger]

You're working the wrong way. Teams that move up to better conferences are looked at far more in what they bring off-the-field instead of their on-field performance.

Things like facilities, television market, enrollment, location, etc. (all off-field) play far more of a factor than how many games a team has won in the Sun Belt, C-USA, etc.

Your attempt to argue otherwise shows a severe lack of knowledge on the topic. When conferences look to pouch teams from smaller conferences, they don't say "well, Marshall made $200,000 from their TV contract" and make a decision based on that. Why would they? They have their own TV contract as a conference, so why would they care what Marshall (or any other team they were interested in promoting to their conference) made in a previous conference's television contract?

As I mentioned, you're over your head in this discussion.

I'm sorry I was not clear enough for you to comprehend- when I say on field, I include ticket sales and television deals because it is related to the football program and proceeds. When I think of off the field it means academics. I agree with what you are saying for the most part, I just wasn't clear. That being said, if you think you are over my head in college football discussions you are clearly a fool. I would be happy to school you any time.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

I'm sorry I was not clear enough for you to comprehend- when I say on field, I include ticket sales and television deals because it is related to the football program and proceeds. When I think of off the field it means academics. I agree with what you are saying for the most part, I just wasn't clear. That being said, if you think you are over my head in college football discussions you are clearly a fool. I would be happy to school you any time.

Anyone who thinks that "off-field" refers to just academics in the context of this discussion has no chance of schooling anyone.

 

[PullmanFinger]

Anyone who thinks that "off-field" refers to just academics in the context of this discussion has no chance of schooling anyone.

Football related reasons for conference affiliation versus non football- those are really the only two categories, since one is about money (the only reason) and one isn't. Now you know..

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

I would be happy to school you any time.

 

[All4TheHerd]

Off-the-field doesn't equate to how large a school's endowment is. I don't want to spend the time to dumb this discussion down to your level, but you're in over your head in this if you think on-field performance is more important than off-field circumstances and if you think off-field refers to only a school's endowment.

Unless of course, you're in the Big 10...then what you do off the field DOES count...since being in the AAU is a very big requirement for entrance into their conference. Before you argue Nebraska...they were an AAU member and the Big 10 admitted Rutgers and Maryland...both of whom you wouldn't say really had anything to brag about on the football field...but are AAU members.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

P6 AAC's ECU is a 2.5 dog to 1-AA JMU.

Do any of the four people who liked this post want to provide a link showing JMU as 2.5 point favorites or respond to the fact that 10 C-USA teams would currently be underdogs to JMU? It's fun to like posts and then hide when facts show it to either be false or meaningless in the context of the discussion.

Unless of course, you're in the Big 10...then what you do off the field DOES count...since being in the AAU is a very big requirement for entrance into their conference. Before you argue Nebraska...they were an AAU member and the Big 10 admitted Rutgers and Maryland...both of whom you wouldn't say really had anything to brag about on the football field...but are AAU members.

Umm, yeah. You are agreeing with me. Off-field things (one of which is academics) is more important than on-field success when it comes to conference jumps.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

Do any of the four people who liked this post want to provide a link showing JMU as 2.5 point favorites or respond to the fact that 10 C-USA teams would currently be underdogs to JMU?

You can often get a decent feel for the quality of a post, based on the folks that 'liked' the post.

 

[mlblack16.]

You can often get a decent feel for the quality of a post, based on the folks that 'liked' the post.

You can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

You can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

I'm just glad you didn't like my post.

 

[All4TheHerd]

Do any of the four people who liked this post want to provide a link showing JMU as 2.5 point favorites or respond to the fact that 10 C-USA teams would currently be underdogs to JMU? It's fun to like posts and then hide when facts show it to either be false or meaningless in the context of the discussion.





Umm, yeah. You are agreeing with me. Off-field things (one of which is academics) is more important than on-field success when it comes to conference jumps.

I was agreeing with you. Responded to the wrong poster. Oops.