(09-07-2014 11:48 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:37 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  You conveniently left off the little fact that the 9 of the 11 were against Penn State, South Carolina, UCLA, Maryland, Baylor, Georgia Tech, Navy, Oklahoma and BYU.

I guess that did not fit your bull narrative. No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

Navy is still G5, and I would put Penn State, Maryland and Georgia tech in that middle weight category. But whatever floats your boat. C-USA has put up with a year of degrading comments from several ECU fans. We are enjoying this season, and expect the results to show up later in conference power rankings.

I am stubborn only about one issue: BYU, Navy and Army are not G5 teams in the same way that Notre Dame is not a P5 team; all are independents. Notre Dame might be able to be defined as such due to their arrangement with the ACC, I'll grant you that.

As for what other ECU fans have said, I have no control over that.

I just thought of this: look at the Saragin rankings. Through September 6th, they are as follows:

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS WIN50%

1 SEC-WEST (A) = 86.26 84.95 ( 1) 7 85.28 ( 1)
2 PAC-12(SOUTH) (A) = 79.85 78.62 ( 2) 6 79.45 ( 2)
3 SEC-EAST (A) = 78.57 78.57 ( 3) 7 78.71 ( 3)
4 BIG TEN-EAST (A) = 77.79 77.74 ( 5) 7 77.92 ( 4)
5 PAC-12(NORTH) (A) = 77.40 78.01 ( 4) 6 77.52 ( 5)
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 76.85 76.89 ( 7) 4 76.88 ( 6)
7 BIG 12 (A) = 76.72 77.06 ( 6) 10 76.82 ( 7)
8 ACC-COASTAL (A) = 76.37 76.26 ( 8) 7 76.30 ( 8)
9 ACC-ATLANTIC (A) = 74.67 73.96 ( 9) 7 74.21 ( 9)
10 BIG TEN-WEST (A) = 70.63 70.55 ( 10) 7 70.80 ( 10)
11 MISSOURI VALLEY (AA)= 63.69 63.45 ( 13) 10 63.53 ( 13)
12 AMERICAN ATHLETIC (A) = 63.65 64.62 ( 11) 11 64.09 ( 11)
13 MWC-WEST (A) = 63.60 64.03 ( 12) 6 63.86 ( 12)
14 CONFERENCE USA-WEST (A) = 61.61 61.18 ( 15) 6 61.37 ( 15)
15 MWC-MOUNTAIN (A) = 61.57 61.40 ( 14) 6 61.46 ( 14)
16 MAC-WEST (A) = 61.17 61.16 ( 16) 6 61.14 ( 16)
17 CONFERENCE USA-EAST (A) = 59.63 60.11 ( 17) 7 59.96 ( 17)
18 SUN BELT (A) = 58.34 58.08 ( 18) 11 58.17 ( 18)
19 MAC-EAST (A) = 57.60 57.04 ( 19) 7 57.30 ( 19)

When looking at Sagarin, he uses some prior year results for the first few weeks of the season in order to smooth things out and keep one game from having too much of an impact.

So its pretty meaningless in September.

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

(09-01-2014 11:09 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  After week #1, I see the conference power rankings as such:

1. SEC. They did not win pretty but they did win. TN looks to be very much improved and Georgia looks to be the best of the bunch. For now, I would have Auburn repeating in the West with Georgia winning the East.

2. PAC12. USC dominated in what some thought would be a competitive game. UCLA traveled cross-country, played poorly and still won. Oregon, Arizona and Arizona State dominated.

3. B10. Michigan State should win the conference. Wisconsin snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Ohio State will be good even without Braxton Miller and Michigan will be better. Michigan State could wind up in the national title game.

4. ACC. Florida State won... but not as convincingly as some thought they would. UNC looks good, but not great. UVA seems to be improved and may find themselves in a bowl at the end of the year. VPI looks improved and might win their division. Clemson disappointed.

5. B12. Baylor and Oklahoma looked really, really good against much weaker competition. Kansas State looks to be improved, as does Texas. Their lack of a championship game could wind up costing them a playoff birth.

6. AAC. They barely find themselves in this spot over CUSA. UCF will be fine now that they've found their QB; it's a shame that they had to do so in a loss to a team that they were better than. ECU, even though they played a much weaker team, looks to be improved. Temple and Memphis are vastly improved. Cincinnati will have their hands full with Toledo if I were to guess.

7. CUSA. UTSA hammered Houston, a team that was supposed to contend for the AAC crown. WKU looked really good and is now my pick to win the conference title. Marshall won in a less than convincing fashion against a team that was supposed to be really bad. The only reason that CUSA is rated under the AAC is because their bottom 2/3s is worse than the AAC bottom 2/3s.

8. MAC. The reason that I place them above the MWC is because I don't think that the MWCs top is is as good as the MACs top, in general.

8. MWC. Nearly tied with the MAC. Boise State will progress nicely under Harsin's watch but SDSU is clearly the best team at this time. I could also see SJSU in the title game. Fresno State really disappointed me in their first game of the season, as did Utah State. At least Boise State stayed in the game until the fourth quarter against a very good Ole Miss squad. The MWC needs to go after NDSU, "conference footprint" be damned.

9. Sunbelt. Louisiana looked very good, but that's about it. Troy got trounced. ULM beat a terribly inept Wake squad. App got destroyed and GSU lost against a horrid NCSU team. The boys in Lafayette will win the conference easily this year and Hudspeth will find himself either in Houston or Dallas at the start of 2014. He might also find himself in Orlando, depending on what O'Leary decides to do.

Ha ha ha

(09-07-2014 02:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

You hit the nail on the head.

What we have here are a few fans trying to spin the AAC's bad start into a positive. C-USA is clearly having a better start to the season. Some just can't deal with reality. Despite the AAC's campaign, they are not a power conference. In fact, right now the AAC might not even be the second best G5 conference.

Homerism Award for the AAC fans!

(09-07-2014 03:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 02:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

You hit the nail on the head.

What we have here are a few fans trying to spin the AAC's bad start into a positive. C-USA is clearly having a better start to the season. Some just can't deal with reality. Despite the AAC's campaign, they are not a power conference. In fact, right now the AAC might not even be the second best G5 conference.

At least Cincinnati is holding up the AAC's honor as its last remaining unbeaten team.

(09-07-2014 05:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 03:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 02:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

You hit the nail on the head.

What we have here are a few fans trying to spin the AAC's bad start into a positive. C-USA is clearly having a better start to the season. Some just can't deal with reality. Despite the AAC's campaign, they are not a power conference. In fact, right now the AAC might not even be the second best G5 conference.

At least Cincinnati is holding up the AAC's honor as its last remaining unbeaten team.

Go Cincinnati ! Your Conference to Win !

(09-07-2014 03:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 02:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

You hit the nail on the head.

What we have here are a few fans trying to spin the AAC's bad start into a positive. C-USA is clearly having a better start to the season. Some just can't deal with reality. Despite the AAC's campaign, they are not a power conference. In fact, right now the AAC might not even be the second best G5 conference.

OOC play is only at the half way point and CUSA has beaten 2 of the worst teams in the AAC. Congrats.

(09-08-2014 01:37 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 03:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 02:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

You hit the nail on the head.

What we have here are a few fans trying to spin the AAC's bad start into a positive. C-USA is clearly having a better start to the season. Some just can't deal with reality. Despite the AAC's campaign, they are not a power conference. In fact, right now the AAC might not even be the second best G5 conference.

OOC play is only at the half way point and CUSA has beaten 2 of the worst teams in the AAC. Congrats.

They might not be the worst. They still have 10 games to play. Both could end up in the top half of the AAC, just like your preseason poll predicted.

2014 AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE
PRESEASON FOOTBALL MEDIA POLL
Rank Team (First-Place Votes) Pts.
1. Cincinnati (17) 311
2. UCF (7) 296
3. Houston (6) 268
4. East Carolina 262
5. SMU 158
6. USF 157
7. Memphis 133
8. Temple 105
9. UConn 98
Tulane 98
11. Tulsa 94

http://www.theamerican.org/news/2014/7/2...h=football

(09-07-2014 11:03 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 08:15 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 12:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  with the G5- you have to look at the individual teams....

undefeateds-
AAC- Cincy
CUSA- Marshall, UTEP(for now)
MAC- N Illinois, C Michigan
MWC- Wyoming, Colorado St(for now), Nevada
SBC- N Mexico St, La-Monroe, S Alabama, Texas St

that's it now- all of 12 teams.

I've got a feeling that Northern Illinois is on its way to picking up the autobid. If they can get past Arkansas it should be smooth sailing from that point on.

@ Ball State has a good chance of being a roadblock for them

also vs CMU could be a surprising team, as always the game at Toledo will be epic and nothing matters without winning the MACC. Lots of ball to play before any NIU/MAC fans starts looking that far ahead.

(09-08-2014 10:01 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 01:37 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 03:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 02:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

You hit the nail on the head.

What we have here are a few fans trying to spin the AAC's bad start into a positive. C-USA is clearly having a better start to the season. Some just can't deal with reality. Despite the AAC's campaign, they are not a power conference. In fact, right now the AAC might not even be the second best G5 conference.

OOC play is only at the half way point and CUSA has beaten 2 of the worst teams in the AAC. Congrats.

They might not be the worst. They still have 10 games to play. Both could end up in the top half of the AAC, just like your preseason poll predicted.

2014 AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE
PRESEASON FOOTBALL MEDIA POLL
Rank Team (First-Place Votes) Pts.
1. Cincinnati (17) 311
2. UCF (7) 296
3. Houston (6) 268
4. East Carolina 262
5. SMU 158
6. USF 157
7. Memphis 133
8. Temple 105
9. UConn 98
Tulane 98
11. Tulsa 94

http://www.theamerican.org/news/2014/7/2...h=football

Sure, they still could end up there toward the top---but I think any non-biased observer would agree that would require huge improvement by those teams. As of today---SMU and Houston are two of the worst teams in the AAC. If they do improve enough to make the upper half of the AAC---they wont be the same team UTSA and North Texas clubbed like baby seals. I agree that teams can progress over the season---but it wont change the fact that both were horrifically bad teams in the early part of the season. If the do improve---it sure would help the power ratings for UNT and UTSA. But I wouldn't count on that. I expect another baby seal clubbing is coming on Thursday for Houston. SMU's hopes for improvement keep getting worse as injuries and coaching distractions pile up

(09-07-2014 02:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 11:25 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  No doubt CUSA would have won those 8 games though; oh wait but CUSA couldn't even handle light weight P5 schools like Illinois, Minnesota or pathetic North Carolina State; or middle weight programs like, Texas Tech, Arizona and Mississippi State.

So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

That's pretty damning evidence you've assembled.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-09-2014 09:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 10:01 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 01:37 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 03:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 02:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  So you're bragging that AAC teams lost in a better way than CUSA teams would against P5 opponents? impressive. The AAC has played 3 ranked opponents, CUSA has played 4. AAC has played 8 P5 teams, CUSA 12.

And here's what happens when the AAC played CUSA head to head-
North Texas 43, SMU 6
UTSA 27, Houston 7

You've been outscored 70-13 vs CUSA but you want us to forget that and focus on how impressive it was to almost beat Penn State? Good luck with that.

You hit the nail on the head.

What we have here are a few fans trying to spin the AAC's bad start into a positive. C-USA is clearly having a better start to the season. Some just can't deal with reality. Despite the AAC's campaign, they are not a power conference. In fact, right now the AAC might not even be the second best G5 conference.

OOC play is only at the half way point and CUSA has beaten 2 of the worst teams in the AAC. Congrats.

They might not be the worst. They still have 10 games to play. Both could end up in the top half of the AAC, just like your preseason poll predicted.

2014 AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE
PRESEASON FOOTBALL MEDIA POLL
Rank Team (First-Place Votes) Pts.
1. Cincinnati (17) 311
2. UCF (7) 296
3. Houston (6) 268
4. East Carolina 262
5. SMU 158
6. USF 157
7. Memphis 133
8. Temple 105
9. UConn 98
Tulane 98
11. Tulsa 94

http://www.theamerican.org/news/2014/7/2...h=football

Sure, they still could end up there toward the top---but I think any non-biased observer would agree that would require huge improvement by those teams. As of today---SMU and Houston are two of the worst teams in the AAC. If they do improve enough to make the upper half of the AAC---they wont be the same team UTSA and North Texas clubbed like baby seals. I agree that teams can progress over the season---but it wont change the fact that both were horrifically bad teams in the early part of the season. If the do improve---it sure would help the power ratings for UNT and UTSA. But I wouldn't count on that. I expect another baby seal clubbing is coming on Thursday for Houston. SMU's hopes for improvement keep getting worse as injuries and coaching distractions pile up

Your logic doesn't really support the facts. Houston and SMU were ranked in the top half of the conference because those teams have talent, experience, and previous success. You can't just $hit the bed and chalk it up to having horrible teams. We made y'all $hit the bed. Give UTSA and North Texas some credit. If your teams magically start playing better and start winning once the AAC portion of the schedule starts, it wont be because they added a bunch of new and better players and coaches (well maybe SMU will). I still think Houston is one of the better teams in the AAC, and I still think SMU could be a middle of the pack AAC team. Your teams are not horrible. They have talent, experience, and have had success in the AAC. You just got beat by better teams.

(09-09-2014 09:48 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 09:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 10:01 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 01:37 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-07-2014 03:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You hit the nail on the head.

What we have here are a few fans trying to spin the AAC's bad start into a positive. C-USA is clearly having a better start to the season. Some just can't deal with reality. Despite the AAC's campaign, they are not a power conference. In fact, right now the AAC might not even be the second best G5 conference.

OOC play is only at the half way point and CUSA has beaten 2 of the worst teams in the AAC. Congrats.

They might not be the worst. They still have 10 games to play. Both could end up in the top half of the AAC, just like your preseason poll predicted.

2014 AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE
PRESEASON FOOTBALL MEDIA POLL
Rank Team (First-Place Votes) Pts.
1. Cincinnati (17) 311
2. UCF (7) 296
3. Houston (6) 268
4. East Carolina 262
5. SMU 158
6. USF 157
7. Memphis 133
8. Temple 105
9. UConn 98
Tulane 98
11. Tulsa 94

http://www.theamerican.org/news/2014/7/2...h=football

Sure, they still could end up there toward the top---but I think any non-biased observer would agree that would require huge improvement by those teams. As of today---SMU and Houston are two of the worst teams in the AAC. If they do improve enough to make the upper half of the AAC---they wont be the same team UTSA and North Texas clubbed like baby seals. I agree that teams can progress over the season---but it wont change the fact that both were horrifically bad teams in the early part of the season. If the do improve---it sure would help the power ratings for UNT and UTSA. But I wouldn't count on that. I expect another baby seal clubbing is coming on Thursday for Houston. SMU's hopes for improvement keep getting worse as injuries and coaching distractions pile up

Your logic doesn't really support the facts. Houston and SMU were ranked in the top half of the conference because those teams have talent, experience, and previous success. You can't just $hit the bed and chalk it up to having horrible teams. We made y'all $hit the bed. Give UTSA and North Texas some credit. If your teams magically start playing better and start winning once the AAC portion of the schedule starts, it wont be because they added a bunch of new and better players and coaches (well maybe SMU will). I still think Houston is one of the better teams in the AAC, and I still think SMU could be a middle of the pack AAC team. Your teams are not horrible. They have talent, experience, and have had success in the AAC. You just got beat by better teams.

What "facts" are you talkng about? Preseason projections are not facts--they are predictions that assume what happened last year will likely repeat. The facts are that Houston and SMU are 1-3 with the lone win coming against the worst team in a bad FCS conference. Thats 3 blow out losses and one win over a bad FCs team. Hell Lamar rolled up more yards against Grambling than Houston did. Its clear the new Houston OC is a disaster. Those are actual FACTS. Preseason predictions are not.

All the FACTS say that SMU and Houston are two pretty terrible football teams at this point in time. One is so bad the coach is already gone---and Levines seat could start getting a little uncomfortable after Thursday night. Want more facts? Lol.....Stay tuned, Im sure I'll have more facts for you Thursday night when Houston gets destroyed against BYU.

PS--in 2012 S Miss and Houston were the pre season favorites to win CUSA. I'm sure the first couple of teams to beat them that year thought they had beat good teams too.

The best teams won in those two games, but who cares? The only thing that matters is which G5 school gets the Access Bowl bid and that's ~12 weeks away. A lot can (and will) happen.

Right now, Marshall and UC are the leading in the rankings and no one else matters. I expect the fight will be between those two and UCF and NIU - anyone else would be a total surprise.

(09-09-2014 09:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Sure, they still could end up there toward the top---but I think any non-biased observer would agree that would require huge improvement by those teams. As of today---SMU and Houston are two of the worst teams in the AAC. If they do improve enough to make the upper half of the AAC---they wont be the same team UTSA and North Texas clubbed like baby seals. I agree that teams can progress over the season---but it wont change the fact that both were horrifically bad teams in the early part of the season.

If Houston and SMU played the Seattle Seahawks, they would get clubbed like baby seals, right? But would that necessarily be because they are horrifically bad or just that Seattle is really good?

Point is, while I'm not actually comparing UTSA/NT to the Seahawks, you are making a not necessarily factual assumption that the reason Houston and SMU got killed by NT and UTSA is that the former are really bad when it could be that the latter are a lot better than people expected.

(09-08-2014 01:37 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  OOC play is only at the half way point and CUSA has beaten 2 of the worst teams in the AAC. Congrats.

They might be two of the best. We won't know until they start playing other AAC teams.

The optimism of some AAC fans in the face of continual factual disasters is rather disturbing.

(09-10-2014 09:33 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  The best teams won in those two games, but who cares? The only thing that matters is which G5 school gets the Access Bowl bid and that's ~12 weeks away. A lot can (and will) happen.

Right now, Marshall and UC are the leading in the rankings and no one else matters. I expect the fight will be between those two and UCF and NIU - anyone else would be a total surprise.

^^^^

YUP!

I could care less about the rest of the conference... All this "conference" stuff is way over-blown. "Conferences" don't win championships, individual teams do.

I root for the University of Cincinnati. I could care less about the rest of the conference.

(09-10-2014 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 09:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Sure, they still could end up there toward the top---but I think any non-biased observer would agree that would require huge improvement by those teams. As of today---SMU and Houston are two of the worst teams in the AAC. If they do improve enough to make the upper half of the AAC---they wont be the same team UTSA and North Texas clubbed like baby seals. I agree that teams can progress over the season---but it wont change the fact that both were horrifically bad teams in the early part of the season.

If Houston and SMU played the Seattle Seahawks, they would get clubbed like baby seals, right? But would that necessarily be because they are horrifically bad or just that Seattle is really good?

Point is, while I'm not actually comparing UTSA/NT to the Seahawks, you are making a not necessarily factual assumption that the reason Houston and SMU got killed by NT and UTSA is that the former are really bad when it could be that the latter are a lot better than people expected.

C'mon. Even when you grind your axe against the AAC your normally more convincing. If Houston and SMU were any good, then by definition, their play wouldn't be uncompetitive in games. Being uncompetitive is what bad teams do. Your really going to argue that? I also pointed out that Lamar rolled up more yards vs a bad Grambling team than Houston did. By the way, don't we already know that UTSA is not the Seahawks after their loss last Thursday to a mid-pack P-12 squad? Or are we simply ignoring data points in order to push an incorrect theory?

Memphis nearly beat UCLA. Temple blasted Vandy and played a competitive game against a solid Navy team. Its clear to anyone that can fog a mirror that Houston and SMU are not living up to the their pre-season hype. The new Houston OC has fielded a simplistic FCS offense that is not going to do much in FBS where the athletes are faster and quicker. Add to that a QB that has regressed under the OC's tutoring, and its clear Houston isn't going to be what some expected.

Houston is not going to be good. By the way, SMU was never expected to be good---even in preseason polls. ECU, UCF, and Cinci are the top of the conference. Memphis, Temple, Tulane, and USF look like they will fight it out for bowl bids in the middle tier. Houston, UConn, and SMU are looking like this years AAC tackling dummies. As Belichick says, you are what your record says you are.

(09-10-2014 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 09:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Sure, they still could end up there toward the top---but I think any non-biased observer would agree that would require huge improvement by those teams. As of today---SMU and Houston are two of the worst teams in the AAC. If they do improve enough to make the upper half of the AAC---they wont be the same team UTSA and North Texas clubbed like baby seals. I agree that teams can progress over the season---but it wont change the fact that both were horrifically bad teams in the early part of the season.

If Houston and SMU played the Seattle Seahawks, they would get clubbed like baby seals, right? But would that necessarily be because they are horrifically bad or just that Seattle is really good?

Point is, while I'm not actually comparing UTSA/NT to the Seahawks, you are making a not necessarily factual assumption that the reason Houston and SMU got killed by NT and UTSA is that the former are really bad when it could be that the latter are a lot better than people expected.

C'mon. Even when you grind your axe against the AAC your normally more convincing. If Houston and SMU were any good, then by definition, their play wouldn't be uncompetitive in games. Being uncompetitive is what bad teams do. Your really going to argue that? I also pointed out that Lamar rolled up more yards vs a bad Grambling team than Houston did. By the way, don't we already know that UTSA is not the Seahawks after their loss last Thursday to a mid-pack P-12 squad? Or are we simply ignoring data points in order to push an incorrect theory?

Memphis nearly beat UCLA. Temple blasted Vandy and played a competitive game against a solid Navy team. Its clear to anyone that can fog a mirror that Houston and SMU are not living up to the their pre-season hype. The new Houston OC has fielded a simplistic FCS offense that is not going to do much in FBS where the athletes are faster and quicker. Add to that a QB that has regressed under the OC's tutoring, and its clear Houston isn't going to be what some expected.

Houston is not going to be good. By the way, SMU was never expected to be good---even in preseason polls. ECU, UCF, and Cinci are the top of the conference. Memphis, Temple, Tulane, and USF look like they will fight it out for bowl bids in the middle tier. Houston, UConn, and SMU are looking like this years AAC tackling dummies. As Belichick says, you are what your record says you are.

Remember, Houston and SMU could be really, really bad and yet still be among the better teams in the AAC. Your perspective is predicated on the assumption that the AAC doesn't actually suck, that it is in fact the best G5, despite the facts that two schools, including one that was just about a UNANIMOUS choice to compete for the conference title, have proven to really really suck.

Bottom line: We won't know how good SMU and Houston are relative to the AAC until AAC play begins.