Is this conference better than the Big East football conference?

[noeynox]

As I look at Memphis, Houston, Temple and Navy, that is likely 4 teams that will be the the AP top 25. It will be a challenge keeping these coaches for sure, but top to bottom there is no comparison between this league and the other G5 conferences. Tuesday night I went to bed early, and decided to watch the last 7 minutes of Buffalo, Kent State on my phone instead of Miss State, and the level of play in that game was far lower than what you see at most AAC games. Boise State will get their share of NY 6 bowl appearances because the MW, that is probably the next best G5 league doesn't have anyone that can challenge them. It really is too bad this league couldn't keep the Big East's automatic tie in to a premier bowl, because I think this league is better and won't be sending 8-4 teams to their top bowl as often.

 

[SubbaBub]

No. It just has clear separation between the top and the bottom.

 

[noeynox]

No. It just has clear separation between the top and the bottom.

The only time I remember the Big East (while UConn was in it) having that many teams ranked, this late in the year was 2006, and I dont think we had that many. That year you had WVU, RU, and Ville. The top 4 teams had some good wins against decent P5, except for Navy but they did handle Memphis on the road last night.

Certainly the league needs a few more years of teams taking care of business, but a couple years ago, you had UCF fans thinking they were too good for this league, now their dead last. I don't believe you can have one team dominate this league like Boise does their league, because there is too much talent top to bottome in this league.

 

[uconnphil2016]

Big East was better with Virginia Tech and Miami (in the days when Miami was actually a powerhouse), but the final iteration of the Big East was worse than the AAC.

 

[Palatine]

No.

 

[BoatShow]

If we're comparing the AAC in its best year and Big East in its worst year yes?

 

[LIUCHusky]

As I look at Memphis, Houston, Temple and Navy, that is likely 4 teams that will be the the AP top 25. It will be a challenge keeping these coaches for sure, but top to bottom there is no comparison between this league and the other G5 conferences. Tuesday night I went to bed early, and decided to watch the last 7 minutes of Buffalo, Kent State on my phone instead of Miss State, and the level of play in that game was far lower than what you see at most AAC games. Boise State will get their share of NY 6 bowl appearances because the MW, that is probably the next best G5 league doesn't have anyone that can challenge them. It really is too bad this league couldn't keep the Big East's automatic tie in to a premier bowl, because I think this league is better and won't be sending 8-4 teams to their top bowl as often.

The play on the field seems to be better than when we were in the Big East. Perhaps when both Miami and Virginia Tech were in the league, the play might have been better.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

If we're comparing the AAC in its best year and Big East in its worst year yes?

Exactly. Last year the league was dreadful. This year it's pretty good. Pretty tough to compare to the Big East at such a young age.

 

[Dooley]

It's too difficult to compare conferences of different years, even if it's just 1 season. We can certainly compare the AAC to, say, the ACC. Pound for pound, I think the top half of the AAC matches up pretty well with the ACC. Clemson is the best team from either, but I think Memphis or Houston can hang with FSU (or anyone else in the ACC). Navy and Temple can hang with anyone else in the ACC. Cincinnati would put up a fight against most of the ACC.

UCF would lose to anybody in the country, let alone any team from the ACC. They're absolutely dreadful. But if you pair up the middle/bottom of each conference by similar style of play, I think it's fairly even. Could USF beat Louisville? I think so. Could we beat Syracuse or BC? I think so. Tulsa's offense might give a handful of ACC defenses fits. I even think SMU's offense could score points on a few ACC defenses.

It's all a matter of opinion (mine), but I think it's "easier" to compare conferences by same year than playing a current-to-past comparison game.

 

[ASweet3781]

Too early to tell but the 4 ranked this year (Houston, Temple, Memphis, Navy) are leagues better than the Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers teams we routinely beat (or in the case of Rutgers should have beat) during our time in the old league. The only teams I can think of better were those Slaton/White WVU teams. But they are all comparable to the next tier of Cincinnati's and Louisville's best teams and UCF with Bortels. And the middle of the league has gotten better with Cincinnati, South Florida, and...us!

 

[champs99and04]

It's too difficult to compare conferences of different years, even if it's just 1 season. We can certainly compare the AAC to, say, the ACC. Pound for pound, I think the top half of the AAC matches up pretty well with the ACC. Clemson is the best team from either, but I think Memphis or Houston can hang with FSU (or anyone else in the ACC). Navy and Temple can hang with anyone else in the ACC. Cincinnati would put up a fight against most of the ACC.

UCF would lose to anybody in the country, let alone any team from the ACC. They're absolutely dreadful. But if you pair up the middle/bottom of each conference by similar style of play, I think it's fairly even. Could USF beat Louisville? I think so. Could we beat Syracuse or BC? I think so. Tulsa's offense might give a handful of ACC defenses fits. I even think SMU's offense could score points on a few ACC defenses.

It's all a matter of opinion (mine), but I think it's "easier" to compare conferences by same year than playing a current-to-past comparison game.

What has been most striking to me has been the way the middle of the AAC has matched up with the middle of the ACC. South Florida, Cincinnati, and East Carolina are a combined 7-9 in conference play and have beaten Syracuse, Miami, and Virginia Tech, respectively, who are a combined 6-9 in conference play. Throw in Houston's win over Louisville (who damn near beat Clemson) and the conferences are very comparable in my mind.

A couple games will stick in the AAC's craw, though. First is Clemson's victory over Notre Dame, second is Notre Dame's win over Temple. Reverse the results of those two games and suddenly the ACC is out of contention and the AAC has a damn good shot at getting a team in the playoff.

Meanwhile, North Carolina has absolutely stormed through the coastal division, and they lost their opener to a terrible South Carolina squad. It's safe to say that the ACC is pretty bad this year. Clemson seems to be for real, though.

 

[epark88]

Forget the on-the-field results: the American is about one-tenth the league that the Big East was.

The AAC is politically and financially marginalized; the Big East (grudgingly) was at least allowed a seat at the big table. And the current CFB power structure will never accept another league into their cartel, seeing how they worked so diligently to expel said Big East.

So the American is actually pretty good on the football field this year? Big deal. Schools from the cartel will simply poach all the valuable assets (read: coaches) until the football isn't good anymore. If for some reason the league still remains good after poaching, the cartel will change the rules to keep things marginalized (i.e. increasing FB scholarship limits, higher stipends, etc.). And if that still doesn't work, the cartel will absorb a few of the the AAC's most politically strategic schools.

Simply put: he American Athletic Conference will never be allowed to develop into a 'P5' caliber league.

The best thing that could possibly happen to the American is for the cartel to realize that in order to keep their grip on power, they will need to establish a middle-class buffer zone between themselves and the have-nots - a "tweener league." Perhaps some sustained success could bring about this outcome, but because of blatant greed I seriously doubt even that would happen...

 

[gioff23]

The AAC this year has better on-the-field results than the BE ever did when we were a part of it (as a FB team). I'd argue it is better than at least 1 P5 conference, probably 2.

Having said that, the BE was better for several reasons - it was certainly a P conference and the teams there were our regional rivals, in all sports. The problem with the AAC is that we are forced to conjure up rivalries out of thin air and play teams even we diehards have trouble getting worked up about. Houston is having a great year, as is Memphis, but do you care? Does it make you angry (the way you craved for Schiano to be Schiano and create a L for RU)? Are you looking at their recruits or depth charts to see where we can close the gap? Do you get in arguments with their fans - any of the dozen supporting either? It's simply a conference of convenience for us. It's having a nice year, and good for the American.

For most of us, the thing we wish most for this conference is for us to say, it's not us, it's you - we're outta here.

 

[Jax Husky]

No. Not even remotely close to what the Big East was circa 2003.

The Big East had teams regularly in the Top 10 (preseason even), and was competing for National Titles.

 

[noeynox]

No. Not even remotely close to what the Big East was circa 2003.

The Big East had teams regularly in the Top 10 (preseason even), and was competing for National Titles.

I more meant during UCONN'S time in the league. Obviously when the Big East had Miami and VA Tech, they were better than the ACC and even other P5 leagues but we're never part of that.

 

[Jax Husky]

When the league had Louisville, WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse, it was still better than the AAC. Rutgers was decent at the time as well.

 

[John]

The AAC this year has better on-the-field results than the BE ever did when we were a part of it (as a FB team). I'd argue it is better than at least 1 P5 conference, probably 2.

Having said that, the BE was better for several reasons - it was certainly a P conference and the teams there were our regional rivals, in all sports. The problem with the AAC is that we are forced to conjure up rivalries out of thin air and play teams even we diehards have trouble getting worked up about. Houston is having a great year, as is Memphis, but do you care? Does it make you angry (the way you craved for Schiano to be Schiano and create a L for RU)? Are you looking at their recruits or depth charts to see where we can close the gap? Do you get in arguments with their fans - any of the dozen supporting either? It's simply a conference of convenience for us. It's having a nice year, and good for the American.

For most of us, the thing we wish most for this conference is for us to say, it's not us, it's you - we're outta here.

I found I cared a lot more what was going on in the conferenece when we were in the Big East. I still care, but it's not CARE.

 

[John]

When the league had Louisville, WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse, it was still better than the AAC. Rutgers was decent at the time as well.

don't forget that USF was quite good under that lunatic coach too.

 

[Carl Spackler]

As I look at Memphis, Houston, Temple and Navy, that is likely 4 teams that will be the the AP top 25. It will be a challenge keeping these coaches for sure, but top to bottom there is no comparison between this league and the other G5 conferences. Tuesday night I went to bed early, and decided to watch the last 7 minutes of Buffalo, Kent State on my phone instead of Miss State, and the level of play in that game was far lower than what you see at most AAC games. Boise State will get their share of NY 6 bowl appearances because the MW, that is probably the next best G5 league doesn't have anyone that can challenge them. It really is too bad this league couldn't keep the Big East's automatic tie in to a premier bowl, because I think this league is better and won't be sending 8-4 teams to their top bowl as often.

What the AAC has proven in short order is that there is plenty of recruiting in the country to support at least 6 conferences of quote/unquote "power" football. That's what's all really about anyway. Recruiting - that's what the cartels have been all about since the 1980s. Carving out recruiting and preventing others from recruiting at a high level. It's only the recent times, when the TV contract money has begun to play a really big part.

It's difficult to make a comparison to the Big East conference, because the Big East was in existence (playing football existence) from 1992-2012. 20 years. Tons of movement in membership in 2 decades, and early on there was a huge gap top to bottom, and the Big EAst did produce a national championship. Second decade saw the rise of the conference as a meat grinder and conference that produced well rounded teams that contrary to media black sheep projection was competitive in the college football post season structure.

The AAC, has the potential to be a much better football product top to bottom than the Big East was. We can recruit as a conference in all the important areas of the country minus the left coast proper. The presense of Navy in the conference? While a pain in the nuts for defensive coordinators initially, over time, I believe will be a strong benefit to the conference. Defenses as they grow in this conference, having to match up with that offense regularly, are going to be well prepared to handle any kind of wrinkle in the read/option - zone/read/option offensive systems that are all over the place in college football these days. If you can handle the triple option run threat, and still maintain pass defense discipline? You're going to have a good chance to handle any sort of read/option.

Navy, if they continue to recruit and play at a similar level they are at now, I think, is going to help this conference become a defensive powerhouse nationally.

 

[Palatine]

Miami, Pitt, WVU, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, UConn, BCU, Rutgers, Temple was a better league.

So was the rejiggered Louisville, Cinny, USF, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and UConn and Temple league.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think if I get motivated enough, I'll put one of those cool little sayings in my online profile thing that says:

"No matter what I just typed above about the positive aspects of the AAC, I'd rather UCONN be in the Big 10 conference."

 

[kemba]

Forget the on-the-field results: the American is about one-tenth the league that the Big East was.

The AAC is politically and financially marginalized; the Big East (grudgingly) was at least allowed a seat at the big table. And the current CFB power structure will never accept another league into their cartel, seeing how they worked so diligently to expel said Big East.

So the American is actually pretty good on the football field this year? Big deal. Schools from the cartel will simply poach all the valuable assets (read: coaches) until the football isn't good anymore. If for some reason the league still remains good after poaching, the cartel will change the rules to keep things marginalized (i.e. increasing FB scholarship limits, higher stipends, etc.). And if that still doesn't work, the cartel will absorb a few of the the AAC's most politically strategic schools.

Yea but I'm pretty sure the OP was strictly asking which conference was better at football, not which conference we liked better, or which we are better off being in. Obviously being in the American still sucks.

I think this year the American is better than a lot of the post 2003 Big East years. Remains to be seen if it continues. When you have this many schools with little track record of being good, you can't count on all these "programs on the rise" to keep improving.

 

[Excalibur]

The AAC this year has better on-the-field results than the BE ever did when we were a part of it (as a FB team). I'd argue it is better than at least 1 P5 conference, probably 2.

Speaking purely from a football perspective, this year's AAC is better at the top and middle than the Big East of 2004, 2010, and 2012. The bottom of the AAC drags it down, even in this season. Every other year, it's a blowout in favor of the Big East.

 

[traitor71]

I found I cared a lot more what was going on in the conferenece when we were in the Big East. I still care, but it's not CARE.

It takes time to build that level of caring. The problem is that as long as this is a "non power 5" league, teams will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting, and when it comes to keeping good coaches around. As a result, a lot of these programs are going to be boom or bust and that makes it hard to develop the rivalries, and the hate required to really care. For me, a good example is how I feel about St. John's. If they NEVER win another game it will be too soon for me. I'm not sure I can ever develop that sort of feeling for Memphis, Houston, etc.