Thanks for the link. I'll read it.

(05-13-2014 11:45 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:21 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  Agreed, and while I'm sure the OP means well, he's barking up the wrong tree. This conference would prefer to be an Army of One rather than be in a Group of Five.

... and I would prefer to be the Shah of Iran. But the fact of the matter is, we are in the G5.

This blog really does seem like a good way, particularly the G5 Top 25 idea, to track who is most likely to get the G5 Access Bowl slot. Could be an interesting read during football season.

Well have fun reading it then, as if I'm supposed to give a **** what you think or something.

"Army of One".

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 06:35 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  until the AAC is in a position where they can poach any other g5 conference at will, they have no right to assume that they are better than the entire g5. last i checked two MWC schools opted NOT to join this conference.

What are you talking about ? The MWC had to sell it's soul to Boise to keep them in the conference. That is the only way they could keep them.

Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

(05-14-2014 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 06:35 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  until the AAC is in a position where they can poach any other g5 conference at will, they have no right to assume that they are better than the entire g5. last i checked two MWC schools opted NOT to join this conference.

What are you talking about ? The MWC had to sell it's soul to Boise to keep them in the conference. That is the only way they could keep them.

Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

We get it LSU fan, you don't like the AAC

Substitute the word "conference" in the quote for "people" and the last part of the sentence speaks to teams in the American conference. It probably applies to many teams in the other 4 "nonpower" conferences as well.

BUT..............

We have no control on whether the term G5 continues to exist within P5 and media circles and because of that our schools are "thrown into mediocrity" against our wills. But we do have control on whether we use the term G5 or blindly accept it, in which case we are abetting the perception of the Power 5 conferences and the media.

By creating websites and "mid-major" polls and accepting and encouraging the use of the G5 term we are continuing to enduce the belief that our schools are not worthy.

I don't care about how much friggin money the SEC makes or how many times the ACC gets on TV or the fact that the PAC / B1G get the Rose Bowl every year. At the end of the day, I don't consider my alma mater a mid-major / G5 / less than worthy / red-headed step child / wannabe / or whatever other term people will come up with and refuse to simply accept mediocrity. To each his own though.....

(05-14-2014 11:55 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 06:35 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  until the AAC is in a position where they can poach any other g5 conference at will, they have no right to assume that they are better than the entire g5. last i checked two MWC schools opted NOT to join this conference.

What are you talking about ? The MWC had to sell it's soul to Boise to keep them in the conference. That is the only way they could keep them.

Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

We get it LSU fan, you don't like the AAC

Actually, I do like some things about the AAC. As much as I hate to admit it, it is a very competitive conference for USF. At our current level of basketball and football development, the AAC is, competitively, exactly where we belong.

Of course, I wish we were in a P5 anyway, but it's not the AAC's fault that we're not.

But I am also realistic about what the AAC is. We are not a P5, nor are we a "tweener". We are G5, that is how the playoff system classifies us and how we are perceived by everyone outside loonies on this forum, and and I don't believe those basic facts are likely to change.

But none of those facts means I dislike the AAC.

You know, in the Soviet Union during WW2, there was a crime that could get you thrown in a gulag indefinitely. It was called "non-belief in our victory". Basically it meant expressing an opinion, in public or private, that doubted whether the USSR was going to win the war. As atrocious a beast as Stalin was, and as alien that notion is to our idea of freedom of speech, you could at least detect a smidge of logic to it: Such expressions could conceivably undermine public morale, thus making it harder to win the war.

But that's basically what we have around here sans any justification: If you don't believe the AAC is going to be 'victorious'- that you don't see it ever becoming a Power conference, don't see it becoming a tweener, don't see it signing a big media deal next time around, etc. than you are guilty of this "crime" and you hate the AAC.

It is pretty hilarious.

(05-14-2014 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 06:35 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  until the AAC is in a position where they can poach any other g5 conference at will, they have no right to assume that they are better than the entire g5. last i checked two MWC schools opted NOT to join this conference.

What are you talking about ? The MWC had to sell it's soul to Boise to keep them in the conference. That is the only way they could keep them.

Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

Wow, Boise paid that exit fee and are not trying to fight it, great news. Here I thought they took a calculated gamble that the fee would either not have to be paid or would be greatly reduced. Thanks for the info and for adding so much to this board. Oh, and your consistent positive spin on all things AAC is enjoyable to this poster.

(05-14-2014 12:02 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  But we do have control on whether we use the term G5 or blindly accept it, in which case we are abetting the perception of the Power 5 conferences and the media.

By creating websites and "mid-major" polls and accepting and encouraging the use of the G5 term we are continuing to enduce the belief that our schools are not worthy.

The problem with this view is that it sees our G5 status as an opinion, mere language usage, rather than a fact. But a fact it is, as the playoff/bowl system has formalized. In the playoff/bowl system, we are among the 5 conferences that do not have AQ status with an access bowl, rather we have a bowl set aside for all of us collectively to compete for access to.

That's not merely a media opinion, it's not merely language games, it's a stone-cold fact and one that our conference contractually signed on to.

So we are G5 whether any of us uses that term or not. Thus, when you refuse to use that term, you are not helping to undermine some media/SEC conspiracy to keep ECU down, you are just displaying ignorance about what we actually are.

Imagine if I said "I am no longer going to use the term "AAC" to denote the conference USF is a member of. The media has stigmatized the AAC as a red-headed stepchild, lesser-level conference for mediocrities, and I refuse to see my alma mater that way. Therefore, I will simply refer to our conference as "our conference", or better yet "the SEC".

Sounds silly, eh?

(05-14-2014 12:09 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 06:35 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  until the AAC is in a position where they can poach any other g5 conference at will, they have no right to assume that they are better than the entire g5. last i checked two MWC schools opted NOT to join this conference.

What are you talking about ? The MWC had to sell it's soul to Boise to keep them in the conference. That is the only way they could keep them.

Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

Wow, Boise paid that exit fee and are not trying to fight it, great news. Here I thought they took a calculated gamble that the fee would either not have to be paid or would be greatly reduced.

WTF? Boise clearly signed a contract that compels them to pay $5 million to us. Despite any public posturing, their attorneys surely apprised Boise's leadership that while they might be able to negotiate that downwards by some amount, they also might not, probably would not, and hence would have to be prepared to pay that amount.

Any way you slice it, Boise's leadership made the call to leave us knowing they were likely on the hook for several million dollars, and yet that was not enough of an exit barrier to stop them.

(05-14-2014 12:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:55 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 06:35 AM)FUB Wrote:  What are you talking about ? The MWC had to sell it's soul to Boise to keep them in the conference. That is the only way they could keep them.

Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

We get it LSU fan, you don't like the AAC

Actually, I do like some things about the AAC. As much as I hate to admit it, it is a very competitive conference for USF. At our current level of basketball and football development, the AAC is, competitively, exactly where we belong.

Of course, I wish we were in a P5 anyway, but it's not the AAC's fault that we're not.

But I am also realistic about what the AAC is. We are not a P5, nor are we a "tweener". We are G5, that is how the playoff system classifies us and how we are perceived by everyone outside loonies on this forum, and and I don't believe those basic facts are likely to change.

But none of those facts means I dislike the AAC.

You know, in the Soviet Union during WW2, there was a crime that could get you thrown in a gulag indefinitely. It was called "non-belief in our victory". Basically it meant expressing an opinion, in public or private, that doubted whether the USSR was going to win the war. As atrocious a beast as Stalin was, and as alien that notion is to our idea of freedom of speech, you could at least detect a smidge of logic to it: Such expressions could conceivably undermine public morale, thus making it harder to win the war.

But that's basically what we have around here sans any justification: If you don't believe the AAC is going to be 'victorious'- that you don't see it ever becoming a Power conference, don't see it becoming a tweener, don't see it signing a big media deal next time around, etc. than you are guilty of this "crime" and you hate the AAC.

It is pretty hilarious.

Please... Pretty please... With sugar on top... Stop LSU fan.

(05-14-2014 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:09 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 06:35 AM)FUB Wrote:  What are you talking about ? The MWC had to sell it's soul to Boise to keep them in the conference. That is the only way they could keep them.

Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

Wow, Boise paid that exit fee and are not trying to fight it, great news. Here I thought they took a calculated gamble that the fee would either not have to be paid or would be greatly reduced.

WTF? Boise clearly signed a contract that compels them to pay $5 million to us. Despite any public posturing, their attorneys surely apprised Boise's leadership that while they might be able to negotiate that downwards by some amount, they also might not, probably would not, and hence would have to be prepared to pay that amount.

Any way you slice it, Boise's leadership made the call to leave us knowing they were likely on the hook for several million dollars, and yet that was not enough of an exit barrier to stop them.

You spin everything, it's useless.

Quo, I like you dude, you bring a lot to the board, but come on. It's starting to get harder. Have you ever seen the positive side of things for once. There are 2 sides to every coin and 2 sides to every story. Things are not as bad as the doom and gloomers or as good as the cheerleaders portray.

(05-14-2014 12:19 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:09 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

Wow, Boise paid that exit fee and are not trying to fight it, great news. Here I thought they took a calculated gamble that the fee would either not have to be paid or would be greatly reduced.

WTF? Boise clearly signed a contract that compels them to pay $5 million to us. Despite any public posturing, their attorneys surely apprised Boise's leadership that while they might be able to negotiate that downwards by some amount, they also might not, probably would not, and hence would have to be prepared to pay that amount.

Any way you slice it, Boise's leadership made the call to leave us knowing they were likely on the hook for several million dollars, and yet that was not enough of an exit barrier to stop them.

You spin everything, it's useless.

lol, how do you think he jerks himself off every day?

(05-14-2014 12:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:02 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  But we do have control on whether we use the term G5 or blindly accept it, in which case we are abetting the perception of the Power 5 conferences and the media.

By creating websites and "mid-major" polls and accepting and encouraging the use of the G5 term we are continuing to enduce the belief that our schools are not worthy.

The problem with this view is that it sees our G5 status as an opinion, mere language usage, rather than a fact. But a fact it is, as the playoff/bowl system has formalized. In the playoff/bowl system, we are among the 5 conferences that do not have AQ status with an access bowl, rather we have a bowl set aside for all of us collectively to compete for access to.

That's not merely a media opinion, it's not merely language games, it's a stone-cold fact and one that our conference contractually signed on to.

So we are G5 whether any of us uses that term or not. Thus, when you refuse to use that term, you are not helping to undermine some media/SEC conspiracy to keep ECU down, you are just displaying ignorance about what we actually are.

Imagine if I said "I am no longer going to use the term "AAC" to denote the conference USF is a member of. The media has stigmatized the AAC as a red-headed stepchild, lesser-level conference for mediocrities, and I refuse to see my alma mater that way. Therefore, I will simply refer to our conference as "our conference", or better yet "the SEC".

Sounds silly, eh?

I don't think it's ignorance at all Quo. I see the big picture, but that doesn't mean I or any of us have to contribute to it. College football and it's hierarchy may not be one of those "things" you can change with a picket sign, but it doesn't mean we have to sit idly by and contribute to the hypocrisy either. But I try to respect others opinions on the subject and don't look at everything from a glass is half empty perspective.

At the present time, I have several conference members of different boards that have expressed interest to become a voter for the upcoming weekly Top 25 G5 poll (football season). I hope I made it clear to those interested, to become a pollster he/she will need to be a contributor to the blog as well, even if his post are short and only once a month. I have an AAC csnbbs member, for lack of a better way to describe contributors, so, in the future I will refer to them as "Pollsters". He/she asked that he remain anonymous. I have assured him and others that we will not reveal members screen names and they can use a different pen name for blogs (not their csnbbs posting name.

My original thoughts were to have two voters from each G5 conference. I currently have larger numbers from some and 1 from a few. One person recommended that the more pollsters I allow to vote the more accurate the results will be. His/her statement was, even If they skew their vote to elevate their team, they will still be submitting 25 teams and it will force the results to be more accurate. Anyway, if anyone has an interested PM me so we can add you to the list.

Thanks for reading.

Oldtimer

Here are the two post from today ....

The Gridirons Great G5’s of 2014 (TOP 25) Introducing # 23 http://wp.me/p4wbqJ-aG

Ranking the AAC in May…. my way! Introducing #09 http://wp.me/p4wbqJ-9L

(05-14-2014 12:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:02 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  But we do have control on whether we use the term G5 or blindly accept it, in which case we are abetting the perception of the Power 5 conferences and the media.

By creating websites and "mid-major" polls and accepting and encouraging the use of the G5 term we are continuing to enduce the belief that our schools are not worthy.

The problem with this view is that it sees our G5 status as an opinion, mere language usage, rather than a fact. But a fact it is, as the playoff/bowl system has formalized. In the playoff/bowl system, we are among the 5 conferences that do not have AQ status with an access bowl, rather we have a bowl set aside for all of us collectively to compete for access to.

That's not merely a media opinion, it's not merely language games, it's a stone-cold fact and one that our conference contractually signed on to.

So we are G5 whether any of us uses that term or not. Thus, when you refuse to use that term, you are not helping to undermine some media/SEC conspiracy to keep ECU down, you are just displaying ignorance about what we actually are.

Imagine if I said "I am no longer going to use the term "AAC" to denote the conference USF is a member of. The media has stigmatized the AAC as a red-headed stepchild, lesser-level conference for mediocrities, and I refuse to see my alma mater that way. Therefore, I will simply refer to our conference as "our conference", or better yet "the SEC".

Sounds silly, eh?

There is no official entity called the "g5". However, there is an official entity called the AAC, as well as the SEC. Stupid analogy is stupid.

(05-14-2014 12:19 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:09 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:55 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Correct. MWC gave Boise a sweetheart deal. AAC was unwilling to do this. That is why Boise went with MWC. SDSU didn't want to go back, even after Boise left (they took their time making this decision), but their hand was forced once Boise left.

Some people need to relearn history.

Remember, to leave us for the MWC, Boise has to eat a $5 million exit fee. They must of wanted to be out of us and back to the MWC really bad to swallow that kind of fee. They aren't Texas, after all.

Wow, Boise paid that exit fee and are not trying to fight it, great news. Here I thought they took a calculated gamble that the fee would either not have to be paid or would be greatly reduced.

WTF? Boise clearly signed a contract that compels them to pay $5 million to us. Despite any public posturing, their attorneys surely apprised Boise's leadership that while they might be able to negotiate that downwards by some amount, they also might not, probably would not, and hence would have to be prepared to pay that amount.

Any way you slice it, Boise's leadership made the call to leave us knowing they were likely on the hook for several million dollars, and yet that was not enough of an exit barrier to stop them.

You spin everything, it's useless.

This is not spin, just reality:

Any way you slice it, Boise's leadership made the call to leave us knowing they were likely on the hook for several million dollars, and yet that was not enough of an exit barrier to stop them.

(05-14-2014 01:22 PM)Redvolution Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:02 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  But we do have control on whether we use the term G5 or blindly accept it, in which case we are abetting the perception of the Power 5 conferences and the media.

By creating websites and "mid-major" polls and accepting and encouraging the use of the G5 term we are continuing to enduce the belief that our schools are not worthy.

The problem with this view is that it sees our G5 status as an opinion, mere language usage, rather than a fact. But a fact it is, as the playoff/bowl system has formalized. In the playoff/bowl system, we are among the 5 conferences that do not have AQ status with an access bowl, rather we have a bowl set aside for all of us collectively to compete for access to.

That's not merely a media opinion, it's not merely language games, it's a stone-cold fact and one that our conference contractually signed on to.

So we are G5 whether any of us uses that term or not. Thus, when you refuse to use that term, you are not helping to undermine some media/SEC conspiracy to keep ECU down, you are just displaying ignorance about what we actually are.

Imagine if I said "I am no longer going to use the term "AAC" to denote the conference USF is a member of. The media has stigmatized the AAC as a red-headed stepchild, lesser-level conference for mediocrities, and I refuse to see my alma mater that way. Therefore, I will simply refer to our conference as "our conference", or better yet "the SEC".

Sounds silly, eh?

There is no official entity called the "g5". However, there is an official entity called the AAC, as well as the SEC. Stupid analogy is stupid.

You do realize that we are among a group of 5 conferences that collectively have AQ access to a single bowl slot in the playoff system right? And that this is official and formal, right? Ignorance is stupid.

(05-14-2014 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 01:22 PM)Redvolution Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:02 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  But we do have control on whether we use the term G5 or blindly accept it, in which case we are abetting the perception of the Power 5 conferences and the media.

By creating websites and "mid-major" polls and accepting and encouraging the use of the G5 term we are continuing to enduce the belief that our schools are not worthy.

The problem with this view is that it sees our G5 status as an opinion, mere language usage, rather than a fact. But a fact it is, as the playoff/bowl system has formalized. In the playoff/bowl system, we are among the 5 conferences that do not have AQ status with an access bowl, rather we have a bowl set aside for all of us collectively to compete for access to.

That's not merely a media opinion, it's not merely language games, it's a stone-cold fact and one that our conference contractually signed on to.

So we are G5 whether any of us uses that term or not. Thus, when you refuse to use that term, you are not helping to undermine some media/SEC conspiracy to keep ECU down, you are just displaying ignorance about what we actually are.

Imagine if I said "I am no longer going to use the term "AAC" to denote the conference USF is a member of. The media has stigmatized the AAC as a red-headed stepchild, lesser-level conference for mediocrities, and I refuse to see my alma mater that way. Therefore, I will simply refer to our conference as "our conference", or better yet "the SEC".

Sounds silly, eh?

There is no official entity called the "g5". However, there is an official entity called the AAC, as well as the SEC. Stupid analogy is stupid.

You do realize that we are among a group of 5 conferences that collectively have AQ access to a single bowl slot in the playoff system right? And that this is official and formal, right? Ignorance is stupid.

Spin it... Troll it... Whatever makes you happy, LSU fan

(05-14-2014 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 01:22 PM)Redvolution Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 12:02 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  But we do have control on whether we use the term G5 or blindly accept it, in which case we are abetting the perception of the Power 5 conferences and the media.

By creating websites and "mid-major" polls and accepting and encouraging the use of the G5 term we are continuing to enduce the belief that our schools are not worthy.

The problem with this view is that it sees our G5 status as an opinion, mere language usage, rather than a fact. But a fact it is, as the playoff/bowl system has formalized. In the playoff/bowl system, we are among the 5 conferences that do not have AQ status with an access bowl, rather we have a bowl set aside for all of us collectively to compete for access to.

That's not merely a media opinion, it's not merely language games, it's a stone-cold fact and one that our conference contractually signed on to.

So we are G5 whether any of us uses that term or not. Thus, when you refuse to use that term, you are not helping to undermine some media/SEC conspiracy to keep ECU down, you are just displaying ignorance about what we actually are.

Imagine if I said "I am no longer going to use the term "AAC" to denote the conference USF is a member of. The media has stigmatized the AAC as a red-headed stepchild, lesser-level conference for mediocrities, and I refuse to see my alma mater that way. Therefore, I will simply refer to our conference as "our conference", or better yet "the SEC".

Sounds silly, eh?

There is no official entity called the "g5". However, there is an official entity called the AAC, as well as the SEC. Stupid analogy is stupid.

You do realize that we are among a group of 5 conferences that collectively have AQ access to a single bowl slot in the playoff system right? And that this is official and formal, right? Ignorance is stupid.

Show me where it says Group of Five, formally speaking of course.