(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 02:08 AM)banker Wrote:  What's so funny about their line of thought is that Houston, Tulane, SMU, USF, Cincinnati, Temple and UConn were all once in a power conference, but due to either ineptitude or just downright undesirability, were cast aside. Now, like a jilted woman, they are crazed with getting back with the one who dumped them.

All the teams you mentioned here are why the AAC,plus ECU,will continue to receive 3EPN backing and continue to build the AAC as the top G5. Congrats to Wku and Toledo, very good teams.

Still does not change the fact that money,exposure and name recognition will continue to play 8n the favor of the AAC One game,one loss or win, does not define any c9nference,it's a body of work that matters.

Remember also,no other G5 had teams with the type of depth the AAC has. CUSA had no team other than Wku, that could serve as a key G5 match up. AAC had Temple and USF play the best and some of tge best other conferences had to offer. That will onky continue in the coming years. A 500 AAC will take on one of CUSA best teams in Marshall. No other G5 conference could pull that off but the AAC. Bowl promoters want AAC teams because of name recognition and quality of play. This will not change going forward.

You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

I think it's more a response to AAC chest thumping about how they should be and will be the 6th power conference. The AAC had a very good year but the over the top self love gets old. Same thing will happen to C-USA next year when we have a team in the Access Bowl and a couple of teams ranked at the end of the season. It's inevitable.

(12-22-2015 11:49 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  What's a G4?

Some kind of Pontiac isn't it?

^Sorry, someone beat me to it.

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

Except that's not the reason at all.

We all want to knock off the AAC because it's a collection of Big East castoffs & former CUSA schools who honestly thought they'd get $30 million per team in TV revenue and an automatic bid to the BCS and whatever was to follow it. Then, when that didn't pan--out as every sane person knew it wouldn't--many of the schools' fans just continued to act as if it did anyway.

It's not so much that beating the AAC is a giant accomplishment as it is a desire to take down the arrogant SOBs who don't think they live in the trailer park anymore just because their mobile home has a shingled roof and a porch.

(12-23-2015 10:11 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

Except that's not the reason at all.

We all want to knock off the AAC because it's a collection of Big East castoffs & former CUSA schools who honestly thought they'd get $30 million per team in TV revenue and an automatic bid to the BCS and whatever was to follow it. Then, when that didn't pan--out as every sane person knew it wouldn't--many of the schools' fans just continued to act as if it did anyway.

It's not so much that beating the AAC is a giant accomplishment as it is a desire to take down the arrogant SOBs who don't think they live in the trailer park anymore just because their mobile home has a shingled roof and a porch.

Reading this board, I think the number one reason USM fans knock the AAC is that USM didn't get offered AAC membership while all their traditional rivals did.

(12-23-2015 10:11 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

Except that's not the reason at all.

We all want to knock off the AAC because it's a collection of Big East castoffs & former CUSA schools who honestly thought they'd get $30 million per team in TV revenue and an automatic bid to the BCS and whatever was to follow it. Then, when that didn't pan--out as every sane person knew it wouldn't--many of the schools' fans just continued to act as if it did anyway.

It's not so much that beating the AAC is a giant accomplishment as it is a desire to take down the arrogant SOBs who don't think they live in the trailer park anymore just because their mobile home has a shingled roof and a porch.

There has got to be some kind of award for BEST ANALOGY EVER! Really love ".....because their mobile home has a shingled roof and a porch." Let's call it The Smack on The AACK award.

I share similar feelings to other CUSA posters. Since 2005 when Utah beat Pitt I have always picked the G5 teams to beat the cartel. This year I simply don't care. I will not watch the game and give my tv ratings to the AAC. If they win good for them if they don't oh well.

The MW has been the clear cut #1 G5 conference seven out of the last 12 years. Not once have I seen a MW page poster come on here and brag about how much better their conference is. They know how to act like champions. They know how to act like they've been there before.

The AAC is so insecure they have to come tell us everyday that they have a better conference. Sure they have better tv deals, newer stadiums, better know teams, higher coaching salaries and every other advantage we can think of. The one thing they don't have is a winning record against C-USA. We earned that record on the field. It wasn't given to us because we have wealthy boosters or live in a big tv market.

Go ahead and put us down on the Internet we'll continue to put them down in the field where it really matters.

I'm tired of the money talk. HERE ARE FACTS: Keep letting the university subsidy keep you afloat, hoping and waiting for the AAC to delivery that extra money you spent before you had the actual cash in hand from them (just read the Tulane articles).

Temple- Loses $7 million a year
“Multiple outlets have reported that the athletics department is losing $7 million a year. “I would be hard-pressed to name another university that subsidizes its athletics program to the degree Temple does,” then-athletic director Bill Bradshaw wrote to alumni back in 2011, when the athletics budget was just $30 million.”
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/01/05...-bad-idea/

Tulane- Loses $12 million a year
“In the 2016 fiscal year, approximately $21.5 million will be allocated to spend for athletic expenses with an estimated revenue of $11 million. According to Tulane’s financial statements, Tulane forecasts spending approximately $21 million for athletics while taking in approximately $9 million for the 2015 fiscal year. These figures account for the operating expenses of Yulman Stadium and participation of 16 programs in the American Athletic Conference, but do not include the construction costs of the stadium.”
http://www.tulanehullabaloo.com/news/art...acd78.html
http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf/201...money.html

Houston- Loses $15 million a year
“But Houston’s subsidies in recent years have grown beyond the norm. From 2008 to 2014, the school transferred $106 million to athletics, according to financial reports reviewed by the Tribune. The next highest spender among major public NCAA schools in Texas was the University of Texas at El Paso, which transferred $47 million.”
“A 2015 audit of athletic department finances reported that spending on equipment, uniforms and supplies came in 88 percent over budget in the 2014 fiscal year, while travel expenses were 57 percent over their mark. Meanwhile, revenue from ticket sales came in 21 percent under budget”

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/03/q...athletics/

SMU- Loses $16 million a year
“Over the past seven years, its losses have topped $113 million. The deficit is equal to almost half of all tuition and fees paid by students in the 2011 to 2012 school year.”
http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/athle...n-the-rise

Tulsa- Loses $13 million a year

(12-23-2015 10:11 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

Except that's not the reason at all.

We all want to knock off the AAC because it's a collection of Big East castoffs & former CUSA schools who honestly thought they'd get $30 million per team in TV revenue and an automatic bid to the BCS and whatever was to follow it. Then, when that didn't pan--out as every sane person knew it wouldn't--many of the schools' fans just continued to act as if it did anyway.

It's not so much that beating the AAC is a giant accomplishment as it is a desire to take down the arrogant SOBs who don't think they live in the trailer park anymore just because their mobile home has a shingled roof and a porch.

THIS. I'll agree/admit they had A great season but from some/quiet a few of their posters you'd think they were a BCS program or at least dominated the G5 conferences for several years. IF they would've beaten WKU all we would've heard from their fans would be how much more dominant they are with the #4 beating our champ. However, since WKU won most ACK fans are downplaying it now that the tables have turned.

(12-23-2015 11:08 AM)MasMack Wrote:  I'm tired of the money talk. HERE ARE FACTS: Keep letting the university subsidy keep you afloat, hoping and waiting for the AAC to delivery that extra money you spent before you had the actual cash in hand from them (just read the Tulane articles).

Temple- Loses $7 million a year
“Multiple outlets have reported that the athletics department is losing $7 million a year. “I would be hard-pressed to name another university that subsidizes its athletics program to the degree Temple does,” then-athletic director Bill Bradshaw wrote to alumni back in 2011, when the athletics budget was just $30 million.”
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/01/05...-bad-idea/

Tulane- Loses $12 million a year
“In the 2016 fiscal year, approximately $21.5 million will be allocated to spend for athletic expenses with an estimated revenue of $11 million. According to Tulane’s financial statements, Tulane forecasts spending approximately $21 million for athletics while taking in approximately $9 million for the 2015 fiscal year. These figures account for the operating expenses of Yulman Stadium and participation of 16 programs in the American Athletic Conference, but do not include the construction costs of the stadium.”
http://www.tulanehullabaloo.com/news/art...acd78.html
http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf/201...money.html

Houston- Loses $15 million a year
“But Houston’s subsidies in recent years have grown beyond the norm. From 2008 to 2014, the school transferred $106 million to athletics, according to financial reports reviewed by the Tribune. The next highest spender among major public NCAA schools in Texas was the University of Texas at El Paso, which transferred $47 million.”
“A 2015 audit of athletic department finances reported that spending on equipment, uniforms and supplies came in 88 percent over budget in the 2014 fiscal year, while travel expenses were 57 percent over their mark. Meanwhile, revenue from ticket sales came in 21 percent under budget”

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/03/q...athletics/

SMU- Loses $16 million a year
“Over the past seven years, its losses have topped $113 million. The deficit is equal to almost half of all tuition and fees paid by students in the 2011 to 2012 school year.”
http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/athle...n-the-rise

Tulsa- Loses $13 million a year

All the more reason why we're better off in C-USA.

(12-23-2015 09:32 AM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 11:49 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  What's a G4?

Some kind of Pontiac isn't it?

Don't forget its closely related cousin, G6

(12-23-2015 10:30 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  Reading this board, I think the number one reason USM fans knock the AAC is that USM didn't get offered AAC membership while all their traditional rivals did.

It's no secret that it stings, but that in itself isn't the issue. I bode no ill will towards any school wanting to better its situation, and I'm generally happy for some if not most of the schools that were able to move on and make a few extra bucks.

The desire to want to see the AAC taken down a notch or thee is more about the fans of the schools who have comparable and even inferior football histories suddenly thinking they're all that; those fans who suddenly look down at the rest of us from the highest of horses, constantly pushing this "P6/G4" nonsense; and the worst offenders, who are those who simultaneously belong to both groups.

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  [quote='banker' pid='12820479' dateline='1450854516']
You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

Yes, but when every other G5 is successful in knocking off the AAC, what does that say?

I spent 25 years cheering for ECU as my second team. It wasn't until I realized that most of ECU's fans had become delusional like you that I lumped them in with the rest of the AAC ***holes.

None of you have been able to answer this question for me. When the
same teams that make up the AAC were branded C-USA, your brethren said that it sucked. The same exact teams, plus a has-been and a never-will-be is a WONDERFUL conference worthy of P6 status. Please elaborate.

As stated earlier in another thread, you can't paint a turd, "re-brand" it, then call it tapioca pudding.

One of your esteemed conference mates (Tulane, no less...LOL) attempted to answer my question by saying that getting rid of Southern Miss and Marshall is what made your conference great. I would like to hear that explanation from an ECU fan. As both Tulane and ECU have been the perennial ******* of Southern Miss, I find that line of though amusing.

Do elaborate.

(12-23-2015 10:11 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

It's not so much that beating the AAC is a giant accomplishment as it is a desire to take down the arrogant SOBs who don't think they live in the trailer park anymore just because their mobile home has a shingled roof and a porch.

Priceless wisdom from Harbor Point. Much love.

(12-23-2015 11:08 AM)MasMack Wrote:  I'm tired of the money talk. HERE ARE FACTS: Keep letting the university subsidy keep you afloat, hoping and waiting for the AAC to delivery that extra money you spent before you had the actual cash in hand from them (just read the Tulane articles).

Temple- Loses $7 million a year
“Multiple outlets have reported that the athletics department is losing $7 million a year. “I would be hard-pressed to name another university that subsidizes its athletics program to the degree Temple does,” then-athletic director Bill Bradshaw wrote to alumni back in 2011, when the athletics budget was just $30 million.”
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/01/05...-bad-idea/

Tulane- Loses $12 million a year
“In the 2016 fiscal year, approximately $21.5 million will be allocated to spend for athletic expenses with an estimated revenue of $11 million. According to Tulane’s financial statements, Tulane forecasts spending approximately $21 million for athletics while taking in approximately $9 million for the 2015 fiscal year. These figures account for the operating expenses of Yulman Stadium and participation of 16 programs in the American Athletic Conference, but do not include the construction costs of the stadium.”
http://www.tulanehullabaloo.com/news/art...acd78.html
http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf/201...money.html

Houston- Loses $15 million a year
“But Houston’s subsidies in recent years have grown beyond the norm. From 2008 to 2014, the school transferred $106 million to athletics, according to financial reports reviewed by the Tribune. The next highest spender among major public NCAA schools in Texas was the University of Texas at El Paso, which transferred $47 million.”
“A 2015 audit of athletic department finances reported that spending on equipment, uniforms and supplies came in 88 percent over budget in the 2014 fiscal year, while travel expenses were 57 percent over their mark. Meanwhile, revenue from ticket sales came in 21 percent under budget”

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/03/q...athletics/

SMU- Loses $16 million a year
“Over the past seven years, its losses have topped $113 million. The deficit is equal to almost half of all tuition and fees paid by students in the 2011 to 2012 school year.”
http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/athle...n-the-rise

Tulsa- Loses $13 million a year

And Marshall will finish in the Black for the 4th straight year this year. Only a hand full of P5 schools end in the black and fewer NP5 or IAA schools end in the black.

(12-23-2015 12:37 PM)born in the burg Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  [quote='banker' pid='12820479' dateline='1450854516']
You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

Yes, but when every other G5 is successful in knocking off the AAC, what does that say?

I'm not sure I'd say every other G5 is successful unless you only want to look at 2 games. Even with those 2 losses I think the AAC is 10-3 vs the other G5 this year

(12-23-2015 01:45 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 12:37 PM)born in the burg Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  [quote='banker' pid='12820479' dateline='1450854516']
You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

Yes, but when every other G5 is successful in knocking off the AAC, what does that say?

I'm not sure I'd say every other G5 is successful unless you only want to look at 2 games. Even with those 2 losses I think the AAC is 10-3 vs the other G5 this year

And of those 10 wins, only 2 came over teams with a winning record. Tulsa over New Mexico by 21. And Memphis over Bowling Green by 3.

(12-23-2015 02:08 AM)banker Wrote:  What's so funny about their line of thought is that Houston, Tulane, SMU, USF, Cincinnati, Temple and UConn were all once in a power conference, but due to either ineptitude or just downright undesirability, were cast aside. Now, like a jilted woman, they are crazed with getting back with the one who dumped them.

That's a great point. They are all "has beens" who have seen better days. Good post.

(12-23-2015 08:31 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 10:11 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  We still have Marshall/UCONN to play.

All this CUSA chest thumping is starting to make me nervous.

chest thumping? Most of us picked C-USA to go 3-2 in the bowl season, so we really only need 1 win to get to our expectations.

It's just fun when another conference fan comes in to the C-USA board and beats their chest, only to see an egg get laid.

An egg is the ONLY thing getting laid by these AAC fans....

(12-23-2015 12:43 PM)born in the burg Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 10:11 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:00 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  You notice every G5 wants to knock of the AAc,that is the best evidence that the AAC is clearly the front runner among the G5.

It's not so much that beating the AAC is a giant accomplishment as it is a desire to take down the arrogant SOBs who don't think they live in the trailer park anymore just because their mobile home has a shingled roof and a porch.

Priceless wisdom from Harbor Point. Much love.

As we used to say in real estate. Ahh but theres a doublewide hid in there somewhere.