Jump to content

UCF_rustbucket

Member
  • Posts

    68
  • Betting tokens

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  • Points

    282 [ Donate ]

Everything posted by UCF_rustbucket

  1. They're probably hopeful but doubt they have one. Makes no sense for the Big 12 not to invite them right away with everyone else if they really wanted them right now. The B12 scuttlebutt also made it sound like Boise and Memphis were the closest 2 of the ones who just missed the cut.
  2. App would be a good add just for the sake of adding strong football. Even if we shift away from market adds, I'm still not sold on Coastal as being a reliable good football add like App or even Marshall would be.
  3. The AAC seemed more committed to fertile recruiting areas and urban universities. App for sure is better on the field than most of the additions. Coastal is good right now but they're still so new it's tough to know if they can sustain this or not. One bad hire or a QB downgrade and now you're stuck playing a bad team in Conway, SC in front of 10k.
  4. Navy wants to be in the west for Texas recruiting. It's the same reason they're in there now despite being one of 2 teams in the north east corner of the AAC.
  5. Little bit of all? Lol appealing to the younger generation by being active and obnoxious on multiple platforms.
  6. I can agree with that. Which is why I'm impressed with some fan bases like Iowa State. They've had great support even when they were historically bad before these recent years. But I'd also say the core UCF base is bigger than USF. I feel like our marketing and OCS also helps us pump up the bandwagon core a little easier than y'all.
  7. 100%. That's why I'm not judging based on attendance during this year. Because in 2015 we had nobody. I'm saying that when the good years come, and they will, you guys have to change your approach to build the core of non-fair weather fans. The bandwagoners will always exist but you need a solid core that will always be there. We've still had good attendance even though we're getting further and further from the 17-18 run.
  8. Gonna give you that upvote. It's not easy to support a team during a low period. I think what your administration needs to do is really bring in the students and spam the living hell out of the Tampa area next time the team is on a high period. I feel like y'all had a great 2 years in 16-17 but didn't get the fan support that should've gone with 2 years of a ranked team that legitimately competed for the conference.
  9. Depending on who the AAC adds, I can see USF score a better football tv deal as an independent. The question is will it be better by enough to make it worth while paying the AAC exit fee, give up the shared basketball credits, give up the payout from the teams headed to the Big 12, and very likely have to downgrade the other sports to the Atlantic Sun because the AAC will definitely not let USF take football out and leave everything else in.
  10. There's probably some truth to what they're saying but it really feels like sicem365 is just churning out constant expansion chatter now just to generate views. Those things probably help the teams that just missed the cut this go around but I also don't think the Big 12 is as eager to push past 12 right away as they make it seem. Purely my guess but the Big 12 is probably waiting a few years to see what happens to the PAC 12 during their next contract go around. Because if USC, Oregon, Washington, etc aren't happy, the B1G could say screw the alliance and make it's move. At which point I think the Big 12 would rather add Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado rather than more G5 schools. Am I saying those are all better than Memphis, USF, Boise, etc? Not really. But you know how the perception game goes. It'll be a better look for the Big 12 to grow with teams already having a long history of being in the club rather than more outsiders. Of course, the PAC 12 could always stay in tact and not get raided by the B1G. Or they get raided and decide to stick together and expand with some MW teams so who knows lol
  11. Most of the USF posters here have no problem having constructive conversation with me since I'm not here to troll. But if my presence bothers you so much you can feel free to ignore me, block me, go build a Jim Leavitt statute. Whatever floats your boat.
  12. Was it really that out of the blue? The Athletic's report on 9/2 wasn't a vague 4, it noted which exact 4 teams the Big 12 was taking. After 9/2 but before 9/8, the likely timeline of events for the following week became known, including that 9/8 would be the day the teams submit their formal applications. USF wasn't among those in the 9/2 report so it would make sense that a major decisionmaker at USF would respond some time after by telling the fan base they're going to address the things that likely hurt their expansion chances this go around.
  13. You're comparing teams in vastly different situations though. I know this post specifically didn't mention ND and BYU but we'll get those out of the way by mentioning they've been around a long time and have historical success. That builds a large following. USF is still very young in football. Now for Army and Liberty. Army loads up on easier schedules. They tried the conference thing and left because it's tough to consistently compete with schools that don't have the same restrictions on players that military academies have. They just want a winnable schedule to advertise for their military branch. Liberty is a private school that makes bank on online students. As a private school, they can really sort of do what they want with money so they've just been throwing down on athletics. As opposed to what the rest of us have to do in having some success to attract more donors to have greater success to then attract even more donors and on and on. Liberty didn't have a successful season last year because of some great freedom or windfall that independence provided them. It's just dividends from being loaded and able to flaunt it.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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".
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. So which USF win gives you any reason to think you're so much better this year...........
×
×
  • 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.