BE/AAC Conference Discussion

[Brad]

I venture on to Twitter now and then and have seen some accounts that are hard charging Bulls fans and others not so much.  I don't like having discussions or arguments there, because it's even more wild west than right here with anonymity, personal insults and off-topic commentary.

But I did engage one account that suggested something that I didn't really expect as an off-shoot of a discussion of Grothe/Flowers.  Now this guy may also post here, if so, I'm not trying to call you out.  Nor, am I saying you were not receptive to a twitter convo.  

Basically the discussion is "what conference was stronger, the Big East that USF competed in, or the modern day AAC (with the three departures included)?

These are probably the tweets that sum it up the best:

 

So, just curious here, those that actually were around during the Big East era and today's AAC, what are your thoughts?  You can evaluate just the top three as this person may be doing or evaluate top to bottom, but please which you think stronger and explain how you think it is best to evaluate the issue.  I think you know I have my opinion, but it's a conversation I think some here would agree with the Rocky the Bulls-----, others maybe not, but curious to see.  Are there more than I expect that would say the AAC is a stronger conference than the BE?

 

 

 

[bulloni]

USF Strength of Schedule by year

BIG EAST
2005: 50th out of 119
2006: 61st out of 119
2007: 22nd out of 119
2008: 68th out of 119
2009: 59th out of 120
2010: 70th out of 120
2011: 52nd out of 120
2012: 56th out of 124

AMERICAN
2013: 66th out of 125
2014: 85th out of 128
2015: 72nd out of 128
2016: 86th out of 128
2017: 106th out of 130

No doubt the Big East was tougher, eye test backs this up as far as I remember

[Peatearpan]

7 minutes ago, Brad said:

I venture on to Twitter now and then and have seen some accounts that are hard charging Bulls fans and others not so much.  I don't like having discussions or arguments there, because it's even more wild west than right here with anonymity, personal insults and off-topic commentary.

But I did engage one account that suggested something that I didn't really expect as an off-shoot of a discussion of Grothe/Flowers.  Now this guy may also post here, if so, I'm not trying to call you out.  Nor, am I saying you were not receptive to a twitter convo.  

Basically the discussion is "what conference was stronger, the Big East that USF competed in, or the modern day AAC (with the three departures included)?

These are probably the tweets that sum it up the best:

 

So, just curious here, those that actually were around during the Big East era and today's AAC, what are your thoughts?  You can evaluate just the top three as this person may be doing or evaluate top to bottom, but please which you think stronger and explain how you think it is best to evaluate the issue.  I think you know I have my opinion, but it's a conversation I think some here would agree with the Rocky the Bulls-----, others maybe not, but curious to see.  Are there more than I expect that would say the AAC is a stronger conference than the BE?

 

 

 

I do think the Big East teams were bigger/better on a average. I also think that some of the teams from AAC could have competed and won the Big East. 

[OcalaBull2]

I think the Big East was still a more physical conference than the AAC.  I'm not downing the AAC but it seems like there were players in the Big East years that USF was part of that wouldn't even consider the AAC in current times.  The athleticism now is an argument to be made, but overall I still think the Big East has the upper edge.  Just my opinion, though.  With that said, I gotta go with Flowers over Grothe.  It's really difficult to compare the two and each have their aspects that they're better at than the other, but I've still to this day not seen a QB as evasive and dynamic as Flowers.  Grothe had more passing yards (by 500) but Flowers had almost 1,500 more rushing yards. Different times and it's really difficult to compare. 

[bulloni]

Maybe an argument could be made that the top of the conference is similar. But the difference is the depth. 5 or 6 games out of the AAC schedule would be against pretty bad teams that we we're expected to romp. The middle of the pack Big East teams we're still tough. 

Pitt finished next to last in the Big East in 2007 and had LeSean McCoy as well as 12 other NFL players on that roster. They finished 3-4 in that conference. In the 2016 AAC they probably go 6-2 in conference.

[Triple B]

If the convo is just BE vs AAC, I think it's really hard to make a case for the AAC, especially based on both from top to bottom.

If it's Q vs MG, that's a lot murkier discussion that can be gone into in depth .... but I won't be going to ****** Twitter to do it.

[Outlaw]

42 minutes ago, bulloni said:

USF Strength of Schedule by year

BIG EAST
2005: 50th out of 119
2006: 61st out of 119
2007: 22nd out of 119
2008: 68th out of 119
2009: 59th out of 120
2010: 70th out of 120
2011: 52nd out of 120
2012: 56th out of 124

AMERICAN
2013: 66th out of 125
2014: 85th out of 128
2015: 72nd out of 128
2016: 86th out of 128
2017: 106th out of 130

No doubt the Big East was tougher, eye test backs this up as far as I remember

Spot on and think of the quality of athletes on all of the teams in the big east to the aac. There was a huge difference in top to bottom of all the big east teams versus the aac.

[Brad]

The twitter convo was both, bouncing back and forth between the AAC Q played in compared to the BE MG played in then back to the AAC today, that neither played in, and so on.  For the purpose of this thread, it's just conference talk.  We'll get to the more controversial part later.  

[Triple B]

19 minutes ago, Brad said:

For the purpose of this thread, it's just conference talk.  We'll get to the more controversial part later.

I will say one thing about the AAC, the BE never had a national champion while we were there ......... jus sayin'.

[Brad]

Thank heaven for the Massey Ferguson.