(04-09-2014 08:28 PM)meangreener Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:18 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:02 PM)meangreener Wrote:  The SBC are not peers.

Last 3 years in football:

C-USA 6 Sun Belt 16

It would have been 3-19 but the UNTs dragged the Belt down.

Have fun playing Georgia State and Liberty.
Belch is a FCS league full of community colleges putting out teams playing in cheaper uniforms than most high school squads in stadiums that also are worse than most Texas high schools.

So, your comeback is insults backed up by heavily biased opinion.

I say, scoreboard.

Well heck Marv, the only thing that separates my local high school football conference and the AFC central are the Bengals, Steelers, Ravens and Browns. You take them out and they match up really well.

If you throw out the top teams in other conferences while not eliminating any from your conference you should match up well with anyone. Throw UCF and Cincinnati out of the AAC and you guys are worse over the next five spots compared to CUSA. So by your logic we compare really well to the AAC.

(04-09-2014 08:07 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 07:00 PM)Dracorex Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 06:51 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 06:44 PM)Dracorex Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 06:33 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  O.K., since Oklahoma and Texas is not on the list then here goes:

B12- AAC
Baylor (B12 Champ) - UCF (AAC Champ)
Oklahoma State - Louisville
Kansas State- Houston
West Virginia- Cincinnati


Iowa State- SMU
Kansas- Memphis, UConn, USF, Temple, Rutgers


And since we are looking at stuff as you said then look what happened to the B12 Champ when they played the AAC Champ.

Are we forgetting that Lousville and Rutgers are no longer in the AAC?

Just like I told you earlier in this thread; June 30th is the last day for schools in their current conferences.

Perhaps I should have worded it like this since you have to be so picky: Louisville and Rutgers will never compete in another American Conference football game so they really shouldn't be used to compare the ACC/Big 12 and or the AAC.

What is up with you people that keep mentioning Rutgers? They are not a big loss; in fact that is a gain for the AAC. You keep taking swipes at Tulane by mentioning how improved that CUSA will be, but you all are refusing to take off your glasses of hate to see Rutgers for what they really are. Rutgers was 6-7 last year (3-5 in the AAC), with blow out losses to Houston and UCF. Hell Tulane was actually 7-6, so that is an upgrade right there for the AAC. How inconsistent are you guys.

And how silly will you look if Tulsa regains their 2012 form. How quickly you all forget that just one season ago Tulsa beat UCF for the CUSA Championship and then Tulsa turned around and beat Iowa State in the Liberty Bowl. Tulsa finished 11-3 (7-1 in CUSA) and ranked at 25th in the Country. In 2010 Tulsa was ranked 24th in the nation. So how the in the Hell is Rutgers going to be that big of a loss? Louisville will be missed, but they had been down themselves until just 2 seasons ago when Bridgewater emerged. And if having one down season makes you think that a program will be perpetually bad, then If having one down season makes you all think that a team is going to be perpetually bad, then how you then turn around to fix your mouth to say that Marshall will be any good? Because Marshall had about 6 or 7 down seasons in CUSA.

Are you retarded or something? Go back and read my initial remarks that you have obviously not read. I clearly stated:

Louisville and Rutgers will never compete in another American Conference football game so they really shouldn't be used to compare the ACC/Big 12 and or the AAC.

I never said anything about Rutgers being the best program in the AAC. It is just that you included them in your posts about the future of your precious conference. Why do you get so upset when I question the validity of your posts?

You seem to get so worked up over nothing. It is quite amusing.

Oh great, now we have a raid by AAC and sun belt fans... what's next?

(04-09-2014 08:40 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:28 PM)meangreener Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:18 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:02 PM)meangreener Wrote:  The SBC are not peers.

Last 3 years in football:

C-USA 6 Sun Belt 16

It would have been 3-19 but the UNTs dragged the Belt down.

Have fun playing Georgia State and Liberty.
Belch is a FCS league full of community colleges putting out teams playing in cheaper uniforms than most high school squads in stadiums that also are worse than most Texas high schools.

So, your comeback is insults backed up by heavily biased opinion.

I say, scoreboard.

They aren't insults. This is a fact, what I said. And, scoreboard, eh?

May want to check the last ULL v UNT matchup.

(04-09-2014 08:18 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:02 PM)meangreener Wrote:  The SBC are not peers.

Last 3 years in football:

C-USA 6 Sun Belt 16

It would have been 3-19 but the UNTs dragged the Belt down.

How many of those losses for CUSA were Tulane or Memphis? How many of the wins for the Belt were MT/WKU/UNT/FIU/FAU?

If it makes you feel better to call it 6-16...okay.

(04-09-2014 08:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:18 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:02 PM)meangreener Wrote:  The SBC are not peers.

Last 3 years in football:

C-USA 6 Sun Belt 16

It would have been 3-19 but the UNTs dragged the Belt down.

How many of those losses for CUSA were Tulane or Memphis? How many of the wins for the Belt were MT/WKU/UNT/FIU/FAU?

If it makes you feel better to call it 6-16...okay.

Shhhh! You're making too much sense! ULL degree at work...

(04-09-2014 08:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  How many of those losses for CUSA were Tulane or Memphis? How many of the wins for the Belt were MT/WKU/UNT/FIU/FAU?

If it makes you feel better to call it 6-16...okay.

Sorry, I keep forgetting the rules.

1) When a C-USA team loses to a Belt team....default response: yeah, it was one of our worst teams playing one of their best.

2) The Belt is full of bad teams, unless a Belt team is invited to C-USA, then it becomes a good team, leaving behind the bad teams, that is unless another Belt team joins C-USA, then it becomes a good team.

3) C-USA call-ups from FCS have potential. Belt call-ups from FCS are unknowns or are high schoolish.

4) C-USA teams sucking donkey balls will surely stop sucking donkey balls and turn it around soon. Belt teams suckin donkey balls will always suck donkey balls.

I think that covers the major rules.

(04-09-2014 08:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:18 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:02 PM)meangreener Wrote:  The SBC are not peers.

Last 3 years in football:

C-USA 6 Sun Belt 16

It would have been 3-19 but the UNTs dragged the Belt down.

How many of those losses for CUSA were Tulane or Memphis? How many of the wins for the Belt were MT/WKU/UNT/FIU/FAU?

If it makes you feel better to call it 6-16...okay.

Well, nice point. Let's examine those numbers further.

The 6 wins by C-USA were: Houston, Tulsa, Marhall, Central Florida, and Tulane......only one of which will play as a C-USA member this year.

The 6 losses by the Belt were: the UNTs (3), FIU (2) and ULM, only one of which is still in the Belt. Does anyone know where the losing teams now reside?

(04-09-2014 09:09 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  How many of those losses for CUSA were Tulane or Memphis? How many of the wins for the Belt were MT/WKU/UNT/FIU/FAU?

If it makes you feel better to call it 6-16...okay.

Sorry, I keep forgetting the rules.

1) When a C-USA team loses to a Belt team....default response: yeah, it was one of our worst teams playing one of their best.

2) The Belt is full of bad teams, unless a Belt team is invited to C-USA, then it becomes a good team, leaving behind the bad teams, that is unless another Belt team joins C-USA, then it becomes a good team.

3) C-USA call-ups from FCS have potential. Belt call-ups from FCS are unknowns or are high schoolish.

4) C-USA teams sucking donkey balls will surely stop sucking donkey balls and turn it around soon. Belt teams suckin donkey balls will always suck donkey balls.

I think that covers the major rules.

Well I see the three call ups being radically different than SBC's callups.

UTSA-City without football in the most football crazy state in Texas. Former national champion coach Coker coaching. Incredible fan support.
Charlotte-Steeped in insane basketball tradition, fantastic early FB attendance (Spring, etc.)
Old Dominion-Sold out every game, die hard fanbase, moderately successful history

All have decent markets.

SBC callups:
Georgia State-Commuter college in the worst part of downtown Atlanta. Poor attendance and poor sports performance, no facilities.
Idaho-Do I really need to explain?
Appalachian State-Great FCS history, great fan support and no market
Texas State-No success or history, no fan support, not a noteworthy school whatsoever
NMSU-Couldn't pay anyone to fill up their schedule. Great basketball. That's it. Football is a joke.
Georgia Southern-Great call up, can't lie. Great support and history.

Potential moveups to the SBC include Liberty (a fundamental bigoted racist school), James Madison University (decent, possible future) Eastern Illinois (who?), Missouri State (who?)

CUSA clearly takes first dibs on the moveups. Appalachian State is the only decent pick but the market hurts.

Way to miss the point. The majority of the losses were by Tulane and Memphis, most commonly with Middle beating Memphis. So the record you are stating is against teams no longer in CUSA, partially accomplished by teams that are no longer in the Belt.

BTW, the Cajuns are 93-142-7 against teams currently in CUSA, being completely owned by La Tech and USM. You only have a winning record against 5 CUSA teams in the current line up and 2 of those, ECU and Tulsa, are leaving for the AAC.

(04-09-2014 09:57 PM)banker Wrote:  Way to miss the point. The majority of the losses were by Tulane and Memphis, most commonly with Middle beating Memphis. So the record you are stating is against teams no longer in CUSA, partially accomplished by teams that are no longer in the Belt.

BTW, the Cajuns are 93-142-7 against teams currently in CUSA, being completely owned by La Tech and USM. You only have a winning record against 5 CUSA teams in the current line up and 2 of those, ECU and Tulsa, are leaving for the AAC.

Yikes.

So we're talking about ULL now?

I got my copy of the Tulane alumni magazine in the mail a couple of weeks ago, and it had a story about the New Orleans Bowl in it. (I think it's published quarterly.) I couldn't help but notice the fact that the story referred to Tulane's opponent as "UL". I think that's pretty official. We've reached the tipping point where it's been generally accepted that the University of Louisiana is a real school located in Lafayette.

(04-09-2014 10:32 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  So we're talking about ULL now?

I got my copy of the Tulane alumni magazine in the mail a couple of weeks ago, and it had a story about the New Orleans Bowl in it. (I think it's published quarterly.) I couldn't help but notice the fact that the story referred to Tulane's opponent as "UL". I think that's pretty official. We've reached the tipping point where it's been generally accepted that the University of Louisiana is a real school located in Lafayette.

Except they have no legal right to use that name. ULM has equal claim to it but chooses not to fight the battle. It's in the charter, clearly says no school can refer to themselves as the University of Louisiana without a hyphen.

(04-09-2014 09:57 PM)banker Wrote:  Way to miss the point. The majority of the losses were by Tulane and Memphis, most commonly with Middle beating Memphis. So the record you are stating is against teams no longer in CUSA, partially accomplished by teams that are no longer in the Belt.

BTW, the Cajuns are 93-142-7 against teams currently in CUSA, being completely owned by La Tech and USM. You only have a winning record against 5 CUSA teams in the current line up and 2 of those, ECU and Tulsa, are leaving for the AAC.

Uh, while you're right about most of the 16 losses belonging to Tulane and Memphis, MTSU had only two wins, both over Memphis. The other 6 against Tulane and Memphis were by Arkansas State, ULM, USA, and the Cajuns. Here are the numbers over the last 3 years for those 16 wins by Belt teams I quoted:

Troy (3), Ark State (2), FIU (1), MTSU (2), FAU (1), WKU (1), ULM (1), Cajuns (3), USA (1), Texas State (1), UNTs (0)

As you can see, teams still in the Belt accounted for 11 of the 16 wins.

UAB and USM accounted for 6 of the 16 losses while Tulane and Memphis accounted for 8.

Here are the numbers over the last 3 years for the 6 losses by Belt teams:

UNTs (3), FIU (2), ULM (1)

So, of the 6 losses suffered by Belt team over the last three years, 5 of those losses belong to teams currently in C-USA.

I'm sorry, but no matter how you try to slice the numbers for the last 3 years, they're not going to work out in your favor.

Now, I'm shocked the Cajuns have a winning record against 5 C-USA teams. I never denied that the Cajuns sucked donkey balls for years, we did. Nor did I ever deny that C-USA once DOMINATED the lowly Belt and numerous other conferences. But that C-USA no longer exists, does it? It ceased to exist about 3 years ago.

My point in all of these wang-measuring contests we have here is that C-USA and the Belt, moreso than the other G5's, have been dramatically affected by realignment and to suggest that one is head and shoulders above the other borders on the absurd.

(04-09-2014 08:02 PM)meangreener Wrote:  The SBC are not peers.

I completely agree with you. Generally to be considered someone's "peer" you have to beat them more recently than 2004.

You have done more talking since you have left than anyone, yet UNT failed to back any of your talk up their last 8 years in the league. Your biggest athletic accomplishment during that time was an NCAA berth and two years of Tony Mitchell...which turned out to be a major bust.

in CUSA 3.0
Southern Miss, Marshall, UAB, UTEP, Rice, UNT and La Tech

(04-09-2014 08:44 PM)Dracorex Wrote:  Oh great, now we have a raid by AAC and sun belt fans... what's next?

Well...starting a thread like this is sort of asking for it.

If I started a thread on the SBC board asking whether or not we should consider CUSA our peers, how long do you think it would take before someone from over here responded?

The same goes for the AAC and MAC boards. We all like to keep an eye on the other half.

(04-09-2014 11:21 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:02 PM)meangreener Wrote:  The SBC are not peers.

I completely agree with you. Generally to be considered someone's "peer" you have to beat them more recently than 2004.

You have done more talking since you have left than anyone, yet UNT failed to back any of your talk up their last 8 years in the league. Your biggest athletic accomplishment during that time was an NCAA berth and two years of Tony Mitchell...which turned out to be a major bust.

Nope, UNT couldn't do anything. We were hamstrung by the SBC.

Hope your new coach sticks around for longer than 8 months. Oh wait--he's your Gary Patterson. My bad.

(04-09-2014 08:26 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  I think athletic budgets of $40 million and down are peers. (non-AQ teams)

41 to 60 million are peers (under-performing AQ teams... TCU, Iowa St, Ole Miss, Utah, Wake Forest etc...)

61 million + are peers. (the elite teams... Texas, Alabama, LSU, Ohio St, USC, etc...)

Some AAC schools have budgets larger than 40M.