So I emailed that writer, Jay Saunders, to quit crapping on the AAC

[USFbulls24]

Every conference has its bottom dwellers.  

 

My point was not that we're the only conference with bottom dwellers. I was speaking about the AAC only, and if you would like to compare our bottom dwellers with the P5's bottom dwellers you're going to find a massive difference. Not that it's a fair comparison, but if you want to have that conversation you'll have to start there. 

[USFbulls24]

However, this actually good. If you don't have these crappy teams there is no way you get three undefeated teams...simple math. Now, it would be nice if these crappy teams won a few out of conference games against meaningful teams.

It's good for the teams that are undefeated and the prospects of us having some seriously good seasons, but it points back to our conference being bad..

[Who'sYourData?]

Email him back and tell him that Oklahoma gave up 38 to Tulsa.  Therefore the Big 12 no longer should be in the P5.

[Bear]

AAC doesn't bring much revenue

[USFbulls24]

They said that about the Big East too.  The AAC is actually a pretty good conference right now.  It's had good success in it's first two years.  I mean you can't deny that.  How will it be three years from now? .... who knows?.... but to say  it's not a good conference now is simply not true.  I can name bottom feeders in every single conference so pointing out those teams is a little pointless.  Wake Forrest, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia... that's just some from the ACC... or how about Iowa state, Kansas, or K State?  I mean losing teams are in every conference.  Doesn't mean the conference sucks.  

If you read the entire post I ended it with saying "I think it's fair to claim this season we have a pretty good conference outside of the P5" which would agree with what you've said above about the AAC being a pretty good conference right now. 

The Big East was never a great conference, but it was head and shoulders better than the AAC. 

In my opinion looking at the football programs in our conference, looking at the program's histories, and even the last few years we have some seriously bad programs. 

You're comparing the bottom feeders from the ACC to ours? That makes no sense... I understand every conference has bottom feeders, but that doesn't make all bottom feeders equal. 

Boston College's record over the last 23 years is 164-124. They went 7-6 in 2014 and 2013. 7-6 in 2010. 11-3 in 2007. 10-3 in 2006. 9-3 in 2004 and 2005. You're going to compare them to SMU/Tulane? LOL Okay.

Virginia's record over the last 25+ years is 193 - 153. They have been bad the last few years with a 2-10 finish in 2013, but before that their worst record over that stretch was 3-9 in 2009. 17 Bowl Game appearances over that stretch. 

Obviously the last few years for them have been less than stellar, but that's not the norm for them. Our bottom feeder's it is the norm. Their bottom feeders vs our bottom feeders it's not even a discussion. That's not saying things can't change, but it's not likely Tulane and SMU become consistently better football programs than those mentioned above.

I am not trying to say these programs are good, but they are most certainly better than our bottom feeders which makes my point about our bottom feeders relevant when talking about my opinion on our conference being good or not.  

If we want to party and talk up the AAC and use the exact words of "this season our conference has turned out to actually be pretty darn good". I agree, 100% (up until this point). Still plenty of football to play though. I still think this is a bad conference GENERALLY SPEAKING. I obviously would love to see this conference turn into something really good, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it. 

[raptorcj]

Well done, Sell.

[MMW]

 

The problem will continue to be the bottom of our conference. There will almost certainly be 3-4 teams that struggle to win 3 or 4 games a year. Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, UCONN, and then the occasional USF/UCF bad year same goes for Temple and Memphis could be back in that conversation quickly.I

I am sorry if I missed your point.  I think what I am responding to is the line above.  Every league has teams that will struggle to win 3 or 4 games a year.  If you are saying our bottom dwellers are worse that the bottom dwellers in other leagues I would agree I guess.

I think leagues get measured on their top teams no?  We are not one of the top teams anyway so I am not going to complain about it until we are.

 

[fla331boy]

AAC doesn't bring much revenue

Bingo!

[Rocky Style]

I don't blame anyone for crapping on the AAC. It's not a good conference.

The conference is a heck of a lot better than I thought it'd be this season, however it's still not good. 

The problem will continue to be the bottom of our conference. There will almost certainly be 3-4 teams that struggle to win 3 or 4 games a year. Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, UCONN, and then the occasional USF/UCF bad year same goes for Temple and Memphis could be back in that conversation quickly.

Once Lynch leaves, and Fuente is not far behind him Memphis could easily be at the bottom of the conference every year with the usual suspects like they were for decades.

Memphis record since 1980 (34 years of football, from 1980-2013): 139 Wins - 244 Losses.

Temple over the same period: 120 Wins - 264 Losses.

Tulane over the same period: 138 Wins - 255 Losses (This includes an undefeated 12-0 season in 1998).

Don't have the patience to look at SMU or UCONN or Tulsa, but I'd guess it's not pretty. 

I think it's fair to claim this season we have a pretty good conference outside of the P5, but talking in general terms this conference is still pretty darn bad. 

 

I am worried about the coaches being raided shortly a la the Big East before it tanked.

[USFbulls24]

I am worried about the coaches being raided shortly a la the Big East before it tanked.

Agree. Fuente and Herman will be gone within the next few seasons if not after this season. One might even be at Miami come December.