A Good First

[Roaming Bull]

Perception and the teams actually being on par we BE teams are two different things. The perception of our conference isn't good right now, but there are a few bright spots. As for the AAC teams being as good as the BE teams that could be debated. These teams have less name recognition, but that doesn't make them bad teams. I think we may have added a couple of low teams that drags us down a bit, but the top could be as good as the BE. 

[hm101]

This is the first time UCF has gone winless in a season. 

 

Oh wait...

[Brad]

Trying not to take anything from CWT and this season, but are our in conference opponents better or worse than previous seasons? What do you all think? 

Let's see, many of our former conference in-conference mates are still playing in the NFL.  We'll see if the AAC can crank them out too.

I don't want to be a drag, and the OP shouldn't have asked the question.  But no doubt we're in a lesser conference.  I wouldn't get too excited about CWT surpassing CJL at this point because 1) it's not important, and 2) we're in the minor leagues now.

[MikeG]

On first glance, I would say the AAC conference has some strong teams. Comparing them to the time we were in the Big East is tough though because teams strength changes year to year. During the years we first were in it, many of those teams had some of their best teams in a long time in some sort of weird congruence. Top to bottom, there was only one gimme win and they eventually improved (Cuse). It was a tough conference to win and there were several ties as a result. I have been sort of surprised how all these teams also seem to be hitting their stride at the same time. Even UConn who started terribly this year like us-- have rebounded. There are more similarities than differences. The main difference that people will use though is perception of the teams in the league. Memphis was a joke for years. Don't get me started on Temple. Houston-- they turned it around right after we left the CUSA.

So my take is that while the AAC is not "Power 5", they are fairly close to the amount of respect the BE used to get when we were BCS. We are definitely tougher than the CUSA we were in briefly though (and definitely as it is currently). When I first heard who was going to be in the AAC I shook my head thinking "oh gawd-- the second coming of CUSA" -- I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of football though.

But to anyone who is an SEC fan or other P5 conference-- the cool thing to do is downplay anyone not in the p5. It is the entire reason they shut down the BCS-- to separate themselves from the "others". They cannot stand parity-- at least not with schools that aren't steeped in tradition. What they don't seem to understand is that the scholarship limits are what really has created the parity - eliminating schools like Bama and Notre Dame from basically buying the top 300 players in the area and having a huge pool of talent to work with that others simply never (very rarely) could acquire. They are the teams with the huge war chests, giant stadiums, long traditions, stocked trophy rooms, and massive alumni support. They are practically unbeatable and they want to keep it that way and undermine any other "small" schools recruitment. It is capitalism in a sense bordering on monopoly. But that doesn't mean the next huge startup isn't being built all around them. So they set up a system that pretty much makes sure only a team from those conferences (plus Notre Dame-- the biggest pig in the poke) will get a shot at the NCAA title.

 

/rant

[The Great 8]

CWT is definitely the best in-conference coach; but did not represent us in our best conference affiliation, so it's not a clear win.

[CaliforniaBull]

If you guys remember the Big East, there were no bad teams. Every week was a dog fight, unlike in the AAC where free wins are handed out, we get Tulane, SMU, or now UCF every couple of weeks. But i think the majority of the teams play at a similar level

Edited November 27, 2015 by CaliforniaBull

[MikeG]

If you guys remember the Big East, there were no bad teams. Every week was a dog fight, unlike in the AAC where free wins are handed out, we get Tulane, SMU, or now UCF every couple of weeks. But i think the majority of the teams play at a similar level

while true-- you are forgetting that the AAC has more teams-- so to win conference, you have the same number of good teams to beat, though everyone gets a few cupcakes each. But the schedule has one more conference game than the BE (think that is right). SO for us in the mid 2000s-- that cupcake was Syracuse.

 

Under that assumption, you need to handicap AAC conference records by one win when comparing to BE ones. Seems fair. -- Though some teams might get to play all three cupcakes (and they might get better)--- almost like you have to take each year and re-evaluate. Which is what makes all these comparisons very difficult and slightly pointless in the end.

[E.T.]

We need to be undefeated next season.

[TromBull12]

We talk as if the Big East got so much respect as a football conference. I don't remember anyone singing its praises like they do for the AAC.

[Bull Matrix]

Feels good. Only regret is that this is a downgrade from the Big East. 

actually like the AAC conference better than the Big East. Big East was dead as soon as Tranghese retired. AAC has a great leader right now