(11-20-2017 08:23 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 06:09 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 11:02 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 03:12 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  1. UCF (Flagship. Class of the conference.)
2. Memphis (Only loss was beatdown to UCF.)
3. S. Florida (Struggled with Tulsa but still 9-1.)
4. Navy (Great game against ND.)
5. Houston (Is this the end of Applewhite?)
6. SMU (Currently in their toughest stretch.)
7. Temple (Stock is rising.)
8. Tulane (Stock is dropping.)
9. East Carolina (Nice win over Cincy.)
10. UConn (Not a bad showing against BC.)
11. Cincinnati (Blown out by a two-win team.)
12. Tulsa (Just two wins on the year.)

Flagship?class of the conference? Does that include o-12, because I don't recall Memphis ever doing that in the AAC. We've been probably the most consistently "good football program " in this conference

Simple really, “if” UCF wins the next two football games (in which they will be favored) they will be conference champions 3 out of 5 years (60%) of the time, including two undefeated conference runs. So yeah.........flagship.

They also went 0-12 a couple of years ago. So there's that.

I do not recall.

(11-20-2017 04:11 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 10:15 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:53 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  I know you attempted to caveat this data set, but c'mon. Way to leave out 2013 and 2014 entirely. It served the purpose of erasing 21 UCF wins.

And a Memphis/UCF/UC co-title in 2014.

Up front with it - apples to apples with the Conf. as it stands today.

You want to look at both overall winning percentage and in conf winning percentage for most consistently good 2013-2017...
#1 Navy .683 .782
#2 Houston .698 .675
#3 UCF .607 .667
#4 Memphis .639 .615
#5 USF .567 .615

(with Houston nosin ahead on only overall winning percentage 44-19 to 43-20)

Let me put it to you in terms even a three year old can understand. It’s all about the conference championship. UCF has more AAC championships without cherry picking data than anybody in this conference since its inception. This year Memphis has the opportunity to tie UCF, or UCF has the opportunity to further distance itself from the pack, or usf could win their first ever division and conference championship.

I bolded the parts where I am pretty obviously not denying your number of championships, nor claiming "flagship" and specifically addressing the "most consistently good" part. MY post quoted the four other posts which were going down that path (St H Gink, Tigersmoke, WhoseHouse, Sundanceuiuc).
Either you don't make a habit of reading the whole thread, or you're VERY insecure...

I’m not “VERY insecure” about anything. I find it extremely telling that you didn’t utilize conference championships in the subjective criterion you used. That is precisely why I referenced conference championships. To me that is the ultimate definition of consistency. Winning the most conference championships. They don’t hand out trophies for any of the criterion you used, but strangely they do for championships. You can have a hearty handshake and a pat on the back for “highest” winning percentage, but at UCF its all about the hardware.

(11-20-2017 04:24 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:11 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 10:15 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  And a Memphis/UCF/UC co-title in 2014.

Up front with it - apples to apples with the Conf. as it stands today.

You want to look at both overall winning percentage and in conf winning percentage for most consistently good 2013-2017...
#1 Navy .683 .782
#2 Houston .698 .675
#3 UCF .607 .667
#4 Memphis .639 .615
#5 USF .567 .615

(with Houston nosin ahead on only overall winning percentage 44-19 to 43-20)

Let me put it to you in terms even a three year old can understand. It’s all about the conference championship. UCF has more AAC championships without cherry picking data than anybody in this conference since its inception. This year Memphis has the opportunity to tie UCF, or UCF has the opportunity to further distance itself from the pack, or usf could win their first ever division and conference championship.

I bolded the parts where I am pretty obviously not denying your number of championships, nor claiming "flagship" and specifically addressing the "most consistently good" part. MY post quoted the four other posts which were going down that path (St H Gink, Tigersmoke, WhoseHouse, Sundanceuiuc).
Either you don't make a habit of reading the whole thread, or you're VERY insecure...

I’m not “VERY insecure” about anything. I find it extremely telling that you didn’t utilize conference championships in the subjective criterion you used. That is precisely why I referenced conference championships. To me that is the ultimate definition of consistency. Winning the most conference championships. They don’t hand out trophies for any of the criterion you used, but strangely they do for championships.

Well, I thought I kind of acknowledged that Navy didn't have any conference championships yet. In post #32 I said: For "flagship" you almost have to talk championships and NY6 bowls (so no Navy in that conversation yet), but you can also talk end-of-year rankings, #weeks in the AP/Coaches polls, and CFP Rankings both post-CCG and # weeks.

I honestly think if you win three trophies but have an o-fer season in there you have taken yourself out of the running for any kudos including the word "consistently." Sorry.
"UCF has the most conference championships - I am impressed" and "UCF sadly has not been the most consistently good over that time" can both be true.

Probably detracted from clarity that I started looking at "most consistently good" with the 2015-2017 seasons to get a true apples to apples of the current divisions and just Navy being in the conference. Got quickly called on it, and in posts 36-37 re-opened the time window to 2013-2017 - dropped talk of division finishes because they didn't exist for the whole span being considered.

Can I reiterate that I tried to convey a positive? My message of peace is that it speaks to the strength of the conference overall, top to bottom, that you have six different division winners/tied in the conversation and every one is worth national attention. #AmericanPow6r

(11-20-2017 04:39 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:24 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:11 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 10:15 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Up front with it - apples to apples with the Conf. as it stands today.

You want to look at both overall winning percentage and in conf winning percentage for most consistently good 2013-2017...
#1 Navy .683 .782
#2 Houston .698 .675
#3 UCF .607 .667
#4 Memphis .639 .615
#5 USF .567 .615

(with Houston nosin ahead on only overall winning percentage 44-19 to 43-20)

Let me put it to you in terms even a three year old can understand. It’s all about the conference championship. UCF has more AAC championships without cherry picking data than anybody in this conference since its inception. This year Memphis has the opportunity to tie UCF, or UCF has the opportunity to further distance itself from the pack, or usf could win their first ever division and conference championship.

I bolded the parts where I am pretty obviously not denying your number of championships, nor claiming "flagship" and specifically addressing the "most consistently good" part. MY post quoted the four other posts which were going down that path (St H Gink, Tigersmoke, WhoseHouse, Sundanceuiuc).
Either you don't make a habit of reading the whole thread, or you're VERY insecure...

I’m not “VERY insecure” about anything. I find it extremely telling that you didn’t utilize conference championships in the subjective criterion you used. That is precisely why I referenced conference championships. To me that is the ultimate definition of consistency. Winning the most conference championships. They don’t hand out trophies for any of the criterion you used, but strangely they do for championships.

Well, I thought I kind of acknowledged that Navy didn't have any conference championships yet. In post #32 I said: For "flagship" you almost have to talk championships and NY6 bowls (so no Navy in that conversation yet), but you can also talk end-of-year rankings, #weeks in the AP/Coaches polls, and CFP Rankings both post-CCG and # weeks.

I honestly think if you win three trophies but have an o-fer season in there you have taken yourself out of the running for any kudos including the word "consistently." Sorry.
"UCF has the most conference championships - I am impressed" and "UCF sadly has not been the most consistently good over that time" can both be true.

Probably detracted from clarity that I started looking at "most consistently good" with the 2015-2017 seasons to get a true apples to apples of the current divisions and just Navy being in the conference. Got quickly called on it, and in posts 36-37 re-opened the time window to 2013-2017 - dropped talk of division finishes because they didn't exist for the whole span being considered.

Can I reiterate that I tried to convey a positive? My message of peace is that it speaks to the strength of the conference overall, top to bottom, that you have six different division winners/tied in the conversation and every one is worth national attention. #AmericanPow6r

Perhaps you are right. While UCF hasn’t been the most “consistently good” (by winning percentages) it appears they have been the most consistently great (by conference championships). So let me ask you this, would you rather have a higher winning percentage and never win any conference championships, or would you prefer a lower winning percentage and multiple conference championships? I think most objective observers would opt for the latter!

(11-20-2017 04:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Perhaps you are right. While UCF hasn’t been the most “consistently good” (by winning percentages) it appears they have been the most consistently great (by conference championships). So let me ask you this, would you rather have a higher winning percentage and never win any conference championships, or would you prefer a lower winning percentage and multiple conference championships? I think most objective observers would opt for the latter!

I'm not sure you understand what the word, "consistent" means.

(11-20-2017 04:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:39 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:24 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:11 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:02 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Let me put it to you in terms even a three year old can understand. It’s all about the conference championship. UCF has more AAC championships without cherry picking data than anybody in this conference since its inception. This year Memphis has the opportunity to tie UCF, or UCF has the opportunity to further distance itself from the pack, or usf could win their first ever division and conference championship.

I bolded the parts where I am pretty obviously not denying your number of championships, nor claiming "flagship" and specifically addressing the "most consistently good" part. MY post quoted the four other posts which were going down that path (St H Gink, Tigersmoke, WhoseHouse, Sundanceuiuc).
Either you don't make a habit of reading the whole thread, or you're VERY insecure...

I’m not “VERY insecure” about anything. I find it extremely telling that you didn’t utilize conference championships in the subjective criterion you used. That is precisely why I referenced conference championships. To me that is the ultimate definition of consistency. Winning the most conference championships. They don’t hand out trophies for any of the criterion you used, but strangely they do for championships.

Well, I thought I kind of acknowledged that Navy didn't have any conference championships yet. In post #32 I said: For "flagship" you almost have to talk championships and NY6 bowls (so no Navy in that conversation yet), but you can also talk end-of-year rankings, #weeks in the AP/Coaches polls, and CFP Rankings both post-CCG and # weeks.

I honestly think if you win three trophies but have an o-fer season in there you have taken yourself out of the running for any kudos including the word "consistently." Sorry.
"UCF has the most conference championships - I am impressed" and "UCF sadly has not been the most consistently good over that time" can both be true.

Probably detracted from clarity that I started looking at "most consistently good" with the 2015-2017 seasons to get a true apples to apples of the current divisions and just Navy being in the conference. Got quickly called on it, and in posts 36-37 re-opened the time window to 2013-2017 - dropped talk of division finishes because they didn't exist for the whole span being considered.

Can I reiterate that I tried to convey a positive? My message of peace is that it speaks to the strength of the conference overall, top to bottom, that you have six different division winners/tied in the conversation and every one is worth national attention. #AmericanPow6r

Perhaps you are right. While UCF hasn’t been the most “consistently good” (by winning percentages) it appears they have been the most consistently great (by conference championships). So let me ask you this, would you rather have a higher winning percentage and never win any conference championships, or would you prefer a lower winning percentage and multiple conference championships? I think most objective observers would opt for the latter!

I would imagine that almost all would probably go for two to three championships, even if they are taken with the downturn year(s).

I'll freely admit that my perspective may be slightly different than most. First, still weaning myself from 134 years of independence. A lot was accomplished in those first 134 years without any conference hardware, so...
Second, a Navy fan who measured success by national championships would be MIGHTY disappointed (at least since 1926). We know who we are. It has been great to be at the top of the division standings for the first two years; it was great to host the CCG and disappointing to lose that game and watch someone else celebrate on our field. When we win one, I'll scan the horizon to measure ourselves against those who have more and set a new target. Until then, our hallmark in the Johnson-Niumatalolo era has been pretty impressive consistency and success (wins vs P5/BCS, total wins, 8 win seasons, staff consistency) and I'll revel in that and being a fan in this Golden Age of Navy Football.

(11-20-2017 05:02 PM)Apis Bull Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Perhaps you are right. While UCF hasn’t been the most “consistently good” (by winning percentages) it appears they have been the most consistently great (by conference championships). So let me ask you this, would you rather have a higher winning percentage and never win any conference championships, or would you prefer a lower winning percentage and multiple conference championships? I think most objective observers would opt for the latter!

I'm not sure you understand what the word, "consistent" means.

In the context of my post, res ipsa loquitur.

(11-20-2017 05:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:39 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:24 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:11 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I bolded the parts where I am pretty obviously not denying your number of championships, nor claiming "flagship" and specifically addressing the "most consistently good" part. MY post quoted the four other posts which were going down that path (St H Gink, Tigersmoke, WhoseHouse, Sundanceuiuc).
Either you don't make a habit of reading the whole thread, or you're VERY insecure...

I’m not “VERY insecure” about anything. I find it extremely telling that you didn’t utilize conference championships in the subjective criterion you used. That is precisely why I referenced conference championships. To me that is the ultimate definition of consistency. Winning the most conference championships. They don’t hand out trophies for any of the criterion you used, but strangely they do for championships.

Well, I thought I kind of acknowledged that Navy didn't have any conference championships yet. In post #32 I said: For "flagship" you almost have to talk championships and NY6 bowls (so no Navy in that conversation yet), but you can also talk end-of-year rankings, #weeks in the AP/Coaches polls, and CFP Rankings both post-CCG and # weeks.

I honestly think if you win three trophies but have an o-fer season in there you have taken yourself out of the running for any kudos including the word "consistently." Sorry.
"UCF has the most conference championships - I am impressed" and "UCF sadly has not been the most consistently good over that time" can both be true.

Probably detracted from clarity that I started looking at "most consistently good" with the 2015-2017 seasons to get a true apples to apples of the current divisions and just Navy being in the conference. Got quickly called on it, and in posts 36-37 re-opened the time window to 2013-2017 - dropped talk of division finishes because they didn't exist for the whole span being considered.

Can I reiterate that I tried to convey a positive? My message of peace is that it speaks to the strength of the conference overall, top to bottom, that you have six different division winners/tied in the conversation and every one is worth national attention. #AmericanPow6r

Perhaps you are right. While UCF hasn’t been the most “consistently good” (by winning percentages) it appears they have been the most consistently great (by conference championships). So let me ask you this, would you rather have a higher winning percentage and never win any conference championships, or would you prefer a lower winning percentage and multiple conference championships? I think most objective observers would opt for the latter!

I would imagine that almost all would probably go for two to three championships, even if they are taken with the downturn year(s).

I'll freely admit that my perspective may be slightly different than most. First, still weaning myself from 134 years of independence. A lot was accomplished in those first 134 years without any conference hardware, so...
Second, a Navy fan who measured success by national championships would be MIGHTY disappointed (at least since 1926). We know who we are. It has been great to be at the top of the division standings for the first two years; it was great to host the CCG and disappointing to lose that game and watch someone else celebrate on our field. When we win one, I'll scan the horizon to measure ourselves against those who have more and set a new target. Until then, our hallmark in the Johnson-Niumatalolo era has been pretty impressive consistency and success (wins vs P5/BCS, total wins, 8 win seasons, staff consistency) and I'll revel in that and being a fan in this Golden Age of Navy Football.

Navy has nothing to be ashamed of. They are a welcome addition to the AAC by all measures.

As an ex-Navy guy, I'd like to see Navy join as a full member, and not just football. I doubt it ever happens, but I would like to see it.

(11-20-2017 05:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I'll freely admit that my perspective may be slightly different than most. First, still weaning myself from 134 years of independence. A lot was accomplished in those first 134 years without any conference hardware, so...
Second, a Navy fan who measured success by national championships would be MIGHTY disappointed (at least since 1926). We know who we are. It has been great to be at the top of the division standings for the first two years; it was great to host the CCG and disappointing to lose that game and watch someone else celebrate on our field. When we win one, I'll scan the horizon to measure ourselves against those who have more and set a new target. Until then, our hallmark in the Johnson-Niumatalolo era has been pretty impressive consistency and success (wins vs P5/BCS, total wins, 8 win seasons, staff consistency) and I'll revel in that and being a fan in this Golden Age of Navy Football.

In 2015, Memphis was ranked and undefeated and riding high in the CFP. Then Navy came to town and whipped our butts in front of 50,000 fans on national TV. Most Tiger fans imho were really impressed and knew that a great team had won and that Navy football would be a thorn in everybody's side then and down the road. Although Navy didn't need the AAC to be good, I think that membership has probably had some benefits to y'all as well and hope that Navy fans feel it's a good fit.

(11-20-2017 05:38 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:02 PM)Apis Bull Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Perhaps you are right. While UCF hasn’t been the most “consistently good” (by winning percentages) it appears they have been the most consistently great (by conference championships). So let me ask you this, would you rather have a higher winning percentage and never win any conference championships, or would you prefer a lower winning percentage and multiple conference championships? I think most objective observers would opt for the latter!

I'm not sure you understand what the word, "consistent" means.

In the context of my post, res ipsa loquitur.

I have no horse in this fight, but I saw this and immediately thought of my favorite scene from NYPD Blue when Andy Sipowicz says to Sylvia Costas "Ipsa this, you pissy *****!" Sadly, I can't find that scene on YouTube.

USFFan

(11-19-2017 11:06 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  I think ECU has top 6 talent with bottom 3 coaching

I don't know about the talent part, but I completely agree about the coaching. If I had to guess just by what I've seen across the league I'd say probably in the 7-10 range talent wise, but I think you could argue last coaching wise.

(11-20-2017 06:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:38 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:02 PM)Apis Bull Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Perhaps you are right. While UCF hasn’t been the most “consistently good” (by winning percentages) it appears they have been the most consistently great (by conference championships). So let me ask you this, would you rather have a higher winning percentage and never win any conference championships, or would you prefer a lower winning percentage and multiple conference championships? I think most objective observers would opt for the latter!

I'm not sure you understand what the word, "consistent" means.

In the context of my post, res ipsa loquitur.

I have no horse in this fight, but I saw this and immediately thought of my favorite scene from NYPD Blue when Andy Sipowicz says to Sylvia Costas "Ipsa this, you pissy *****!" Sadly, I can't find that scene on YouTube.

USFFan

Cool story bro. You keep living in a fictional world created for television.
I prefer my own independent thoughts and responses without the need to default to someone else’s.

(11-20-2017 06:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 06:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:38 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:02 PM)Apis Bull Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Perhaps you are right. While UCF hasn’t been the most “consistently good” (by winning percentages) it appears they have been the most consistently great (by conference championships). So let me ask you this, would you rather have a higher winning percentage and never win any conference championships, or would you prefer a lower winning percentage and multiple conference championships? I think most objective observers would opt for the latter!

I'm not sure you understand what the word, "consistent" means.

In the context of my post, res ipsa loquitur.

I have no horse in this fight, but I saw this and immediately thought of my favorite scene from NYPD Blue when Andy Sipowicz says to Sylvia Costas "Ipsa this, you pissy *****!" Sadly, I can't find that scene on YouTube.

USFFan

Cool story bro. You keep living in a fictional world created for television.
I prefer my own independent thoughts and responses without the need to default to someone else’s.

Jeez, man, I was just making a joke about your use of Latin. Sorry. Go back to your battle - I'm done.

USFFan

(11-20-2017 06:56 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 06:48 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 06:20 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:38 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:02 PM)Apis Bull Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand what the word, "consistent" means.

In the context of my post, res ipsa loquitur.

I have no horse in this fight, but I saw this and immediately thought of my favorite scene from NYPD Blue when Andy Sipowicz says to Sylvia Costas "Ipsa this, you pissy *****!" Sadly, I can't find that scene on YouTube.

USFFan

Cool story bro. You keep living in a fictional world created for television.
I prefer my own independent thoughts and responses without the need to default to someone else’s.

Jeez, man, I was just making a joke about your use of Latin. Sorry. Go back to your battle - I'm done.

USFFan

For a usf fan you’re not too bad, but this IS rivalry week!

(11-20-2017 04:11 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 08:42 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 08:23 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 06:09 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Simple really, “if” UCF wins the next two football games (in which they will be favored) they will be conference champions 3 out of 5 years (60%) of the time, including two undefeated conference runs. So yeah.........flagship.

They also went 0-12 a couple of years ago. So there's that.

And that's so relevant today.

If 10-0 is relevant, then so the hell is 0-12. Just sayin'...

I don't know what you are talking about. #shortmemory

LOL. Good response. And convenient.

(11-20-2017 07:19 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:11 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 08:42 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 08:23 AM)First Mate Wrote:  They also went 0-12 a couple of years ago. So there's that.

And that's so relevant today.

If 10-0 is relevant, then so the hell is 0-12. Just sayin'...

I don't know what you are talking about. #shortmemory

LOL. Good response. And convenient.

I’ll point out that there isn’t much difference between 1-10 and 0-12.

(11-20-2017 06:11 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  I'll freely admit that my perspective may be slightly different than most. First, still weaning myself from 134 years of independence. A lot was accomplished in those first 134 years without any conference hardware, so...
Second, a Navy fan who measured success by national championships would be MIGHTY disappointed (at least since 1926). We know who we are. It has been great to be at the top of the division standings for the first two years; it was great to host the CCG and disappointing to lose that game and watch someone else celebrate on our field. When we win one, I'll scan the horizon to measure ourselves against those who have more and set a new target. Until then, our hallmark in the Johnson-Niumatalolo era has been pretty impressive consistency and success (wins vs P5/BCS, total wins, 8 win seasons, staff consistency) and I'll revel in that and being a fan in this Golden Age of Navy Football.

In 2015, Memphis was ranked and undefeated and riding high in the CFP. Then Navy came to town and whipped our butts in front of 50,000 fans on national TV. Most Tiger fans imho were really impressed and knew that a great team had won and that Navy football would be a thorn in everybody's side then and down the road. Although Navy didn't need the AAC to be good, I think that membership has probably had some benefits to y'all as well and hope that Navy fans feel it's a good fit.

The AAC has absolutely benefited from Navy's membership. Since they came aboard and balanced the divisions, both the conference champ and runner up have ended the year ranked by the CFP committee. The AAC is the only conference outside the power conferences to end up with both division winners ranked.

(11-20-2017 07:47 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 07:19 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:11 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 08:42 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  And that's so relevant today.

If 10-0 is relevant, then so the hell is 0-12. Just sayin'...

I don't know what you are talking about. #shortmemory

LOL. Good response. And convenient.

I’ll point out that there isn’t much difference between 1-10 and 0-12.

Oh yeah, an ocean between them, at least, lol. Plus, that was 7 years ago, not 2. Nobody except you remembers that.

(11-19-2017 11:02 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 03:12 PM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  1. UCF (Flagship. Class of the conference.)
2. Memphis (Only loss was beatdown to UCF.)
3. S. Florida (Struggled with Tulsa but still 9-1.)
4. Navy (Great game against ND.)
5. Houston (Is this the end of Applewhite?)
6. SMU (Currently in their toughest stretch.)
7. Temple (Stock is rising.)
8. Tulane (Stock is dropping.)
9. East Carolina (Nice win over Cincy.)
10. UConn (Not a bad showing against BC.)
11. Cincinnati (Blown out by a two-win team.)
12. Tulsa (Just two wins on the year.)

Flagship?class of the conference? Does that include o-12, because I don't recall Memphis ever doing that in the AAC. We've been probably the most consistently "good football program " in this conference

I hope you’re aware that this is a ranking of the conference based on the play of the past week.

However, let’s play your game and say this is instead a ranking of every team’s entire time in the AAC. It doesn’t change anything for UCF.

AAC Championships

2 UCF (No. 3 coming?)
1 Cincinnati
1 Houston
1 Memphis
1 Temple

AAC Wins

26 UCF
26 Houston
24 Memphis
24 South Florida
22 Temple
19 Cincinnati
18 Navy
12 SMU
12 Tulsa
11 East Carolina
11 UConn
7 Tulane