Does anybody else notice a massive imbalance in the conference?

[CaliforniaBull]

Breaking down the conference below, I have given each team a ranking in 3 different categories. The first ranking is how good the team will be this year. The second ranking is how good you have been in the past (obviously the more recent past is far more important here, but national following also is considered), and the third ranking is off of potential. Points will be awarded per ranking.

 

East

Cincinnati (1,1,2) Pts. 35

USF (7,2,1) Pts. 29

UCF (3,5,3) Pts. 28

East Carolina (6,7,4) Pts. 22

Connecticut (9,6,6) Pts. 18

Temple (8,11,11) Pts. 6

 

West

Houston (4,4,5) Pts. 26

Navy (5,3,7) Pts. 24

Memphis (2,10,8) Pts. 19

SMU (11,8,10) Pts. 10

Tulane (10,12,9) Pts. 8

Tulsa (12,9,12) Pts. 6

So my point is, I am just not sure why they would make the football divisions so imbalanced? My proposed change would be switch Cincinnati and Tulane, but does the American consider Cincinnati rivals with UConn and USF from the old Big East Days? Is it simply due to the 'geographical fit? Not to mention Tulane would be right there along with USF, UCF, and ECU so that would make sense. I just don't see why all 3 bottom feeders in the conference are in one division, while none are in the east. anybody who has a smidge of talent in the west is going to look like a powerhouse, while the east beats up on its own best teams. Hopefully the eastern team is deemed to have a tougher SoS and will win the CCG and take a new years 6 bowl game over stupid Boise st even if it has one more loss

[slick1ru2]

You want bottom feeders to play bottom feeders, they have competitive games and are fun to watch vs blow outs.

[smazza]

what is the difference?

 

these things change 

 

 

usf would do poorly in either division

[flsportsfan83]

I don't know how you could possibly have CF ranked behind USF using your criteria.

[DELdaBull]

Rankings are biased.

[DELdaBull]

The whole conference is trash

[Brad]

Many true points. The conference is what it is, but I first looked at the divisions last week and it stood out that the East was way stronger than the West. It's pretty obvious. Regardless, you have to win the crummy thing.

[Triple B]

what is the difference?

 

these things change 

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. My guess is that the division make ups had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the programs at the time but with geography, history (old BE), etc. College football can change too quickly to make decisions like that based on current status.

[Guest]

To be fair, the P5 conferences all have this kind of imbalance... and that was the problem with the Big East - we didn't.

 

The AAC needs to have 3-4 teams that dominate year-in-and-year-out... and 3-4 teams that only have a chance once every 4-6 years.

 

In the SEC that would be Alabama / Auburn / LSU .... and Vanderbilt / Ole Miss / Kentucky

 

In the Big Ten that would be Ohio State / Michigan / Wisconsin ... and Purdue / Indiana / Northwestern

 

In the Pac 12 that would be Oregon / USC  and Washington / Wazzu

 

We need to see Cincy / USF / Houston dominate ... and see U Conn / SMU / Tulane / Tulsa remain bottom feeders.

If we can get 2-3 teams that can win 10+ games every year, then we can change the attitudes and become P6.

[GaUSFBull]

We REALLY need to win this conference this year.  At least, we need to make a bowl game.