Jump to content

UCF_rustbucket

Member
  • Posts

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  • Points

    54 [ Donate ]

UCF_rustbucket last won the day on June 28 2018

UCF_rustbucket had the most liked content!

UCF_rustbucket's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

32

Reputation

  1. This has been my stance for a while. People love the symmetry of 4 x 16, but how does that make any sense for the tv partners. There already are (or were) 64 teams in the P5. Rearranging the seats doesn't do a single thing. Instead, we'll keep seeing what just happened with the Big 12 and SEC. The actual premier brand gravitating together to create an even better product for the tv partners and use it as a way to shed the deadweights. Now ESPN won't have to pay Texas Tech and Kansas State the same money they were paying Texas and Oklahoma.
  2. I wouldn't put any stock into this particularly notorious group of expansion "insiders". It's him, the Dude of WV, Tuxedo Yoda, and maybe a few others. They've been tweeting nonsense for years in hopes something sticks.
  3. Slightly disagree. The new B12 would remain in the top 5 for the new CFP, especially if they add the top 4 from the AAC. But the new AAC without their top 4 is no longer a clear #6. It would depend on who the backfills are. You can forget about any of the top MWC teams joining a depleted AAC, so it's the usual CUSA SBC suspects. Get the right ones and you have a contender for #6 along with the MWC. But if the top targets stay put, oof. Dumpster fire.
  4. Oh for sure, you're right on that. We would be a little better as a conference than we are now and decimate the MWC, but nowhere near enough for the lofty goals of being "P6".
  5. The quoted paragraph is from the original article before it got pulled and edited. I don't wanna hit you with a wall of text so I won't copy and paste it here unless requested. But the short version is that the original article read like an insider scoop of a realignment move that was happening soon. It got pulled quickly, then a while later the article was reposted but the content changed and the tone was now that of "hey it's the off-season so here's a wacky AAC expansion idea!" This writer apparently has been pretty good with scoops before which makes me wonder if he misheard something, got a talking to from the AAC office and tried to fix it. Or if his first article was accurate but he jumped the gun on when he was supposed to share his scoop.
  6. Biased UCF, but he definitely scored. Problem is that the camera angles were ass and the wrong call was made on the field so per their procedures, it was gonna be hard to overturn that.
  7. SMU and Toledo were some examples, along with Tulsa, but basically the CBI and CIT the last few years only included SunBelt, MAC, and an occasional CUSA team. The rest of the field was meh. I think extra costs associated with these lower tournaments make it undesirable for some.
  8. I think it's NIT or bust for you guys. The better conferences have turned down the CBI and CIT invites the past few years. SMU and Toledo turned down the CBI last year.
  9. At work so I was only periodically checking the game score on the ESPN app. Took a break and decided let me tune in for the last 2 minutes of the half to watch some AAC football. Literally within the first 5 seconds of watching, "AND THIS SETS UP CRONKRITE, THE TRANSFER FROM FLORIDA" I'll go find a drink.
  10. Lol are you for real? Is this just grand deflection because you can't admit you were 100% wrong and even provided the evidence for us. I literally proved everything you said was wrong. Or well, you did for me. Never said that our SOS was great, YOU were the one touting your SOS. My only argument was that you were clearly fluffing up your bad SOS when it was obvious the teams you played were bad. Did you ignore that USF's SOS is 101? As in lower than UCF's 85. So you kept going on and on about your 2 P5 wins and how we haven't played the caliber of opponent USF has but you literally provided a link that shows all of that was wrong. Definitely don't need validation from a delusional bulls fan that thinks the 101st ranked SOS is harder than 85th.
  11. So you're gonna keep shouting P5 even though both teams are terrible? Also, the link you provided disproves everything you're claiming. It ranks FAU 27, GT 62, and illinois 100. It also lists UCFs projected SOS as 85 and USFs as 101.
  12. So which USF win gives you any reason to think you're so much better this year...........
  13. Lol so Illinois matters because of their 1 FBS win again Kent state and GT matters because of their 1 FCS win and ECU because of beating a terrible UNC despite also losing to an FCS team? Those are teams that matter? None of them even went to a bowl last year. Including UNC since that's the claim for ECU mattering though I'm sure you'd down play UNC if we had gotten to play them. That's delusion if I've ever seen it.
  14. That you USF fans are ridiculous sometimes because you haven't beaten anyone noteworthy, no we haven't either, yet somehow your team looks way better. Even after today. I think your wins actually look less impressive than you want them to be considering those 2 P5 teams combine for 2 FCS wins and a 7 point MAC win.
  15. Haven't had the opportunity to do so. But I'd bet money on us beating UNC if it hadn't been cancelled and our second P5 game is next week. But not sure how UCF beating low tier P5s and USF beating middle of the road P5s at best tells you much about anything. Especially since Illinois only has one FBS win by 1 TD against Kent State and GT doesn't have an FBS win yet.
×
×
  • Create New...

It appears you are using ad blocking tools.  This site is supported through ads.  Please disable in order to enjoy full access to The Bulls Pen.