Most Balanced Conference

[colorado_loves_football]

Sun Belt maybe 'sucks' but Arkansas St, wasn't that bad a team, neither for that matter was Louisiana Lafayette.
I think the Sun Belt could surprise some people, next year. They would appear to be on the 'rise' competitively, since N. Texas wasn't the #1.

What makes you think Arkansas State is good? Was it their 44-17 shellacking by Missouri, or the 38-10 blowout at the hands of 4-7 Army? Or maybe it was their 4 losses to teams with losing records.

What makes you think La.-Layfayette is good? Was it their blowout loss to 4-7 Eastern Michigan, their loss to 2-9 Florida Atlantic, or their 0-2 record against teams with a winning record?

The Sun Belt won a single non-conference games against I-A teams last year and then every team lost to at least two other Sun Belt Teams.

First of all I do'nt recall ever saying they were 'good', but I likely implied they were competitive, and I believe that's an accurate statement. I know they lost some games, and that their overall record of 6-6 doesn't really suggest they were very good, comptitively.
But they did play S. Mississippi tough, in the New Orleans Bowl.
As for Louisiana-Lafayette, they were also 'up-and-down' but by season's end they were a competitive football team, as evidenced by their shellacking of Louisiana-Monroe, the 'front-runner' for the New Orleans Bowl. I never said the Sun Belt was 'good' but improving.
I think that's a fair assessement of where they stack up.
What they are, in effect is a I-AA division posing as a I-A. They need some 'big' names, to become a more competitive conference. I suggested they add Louisiana Tech a team more geographically suited to the Sun Belt, than the WAC. And at 7-4 they would have likely challenged S. Mississippi (or likely won), as it was they weren't selected.
Another team I feel might more appropriately belong in the Sun Belt, geographically is Tulane. UCF would appear more geographically suited to the Sun Belt than to C-USA, and Louisiana-Lafayette played them close.
Louisiana Lafayette was a pretty competitive team, likely were a better team than Arkansas St, but unfortunately lost head-to-head, to lose the Sun Belt. I would likely have selected them over Arkansas St, to the New Orleans Bowl.

[ktffan]

I dont' recall ever saying they were 'good' I simply said the conference as a whole would appear to be improving, and I think that's a fair statement, in general. Sun Belt has only been around 5 years, in I-A, although it would appear it's existed in some fashion for a considerable period of time if the information on CFPDW is accurate.

Accurate or not, you are probably misreading what you see.

I've been watching the Sun Belt every since they started, and they are NOT improving. They were improving up until the 2004 season, but took a serious nose dive last year. They only had one win over a I-A team last year and looked ugly in most of their non-conference games. If it weren't for I-AA opponents and each other, most of these teams would win nothing.

There's really no conference that can be said to be the origin of the Sun Belt, it's origin came with the demise of the Big West. North Texas, Arkansas State, Utah State, Idaho and New Mexico State came across as charter members of the football portion of the conference (the conference has existed many years in other sports) when the Big West dropped football. Utah State, Idaho and New Mexico State have since left the conference leaving it as a conglomeration of recent I-AA transfers.

[colorado_loves_football]

Accurate or not, you are probably misreading what you see.

I've been watching the Sun Belt every since they started, and they are NOT improving. They were improving up until the 2004 season, but took a serious nose dive last year. They only had one win over a I-A team last year and looked ugly in most of their non-conference games. If it weren't for I-AA opponents and each other, most of these teams would win nothing.

There's really no conference that can be said to be the origin of the Sun Belt, it's origin came with the demise of the Big West. North Texas, Arkansas State, Utah State, Idaho and New Mexico State came across as charter members of the football portion of the conference (the conference has existed many years in other sports) when the Big West dropped football. Utah State, Idaho and New Mexico State have since left the conference leaving it as a conglomeration of recent I-AA transfers.

I agree that the Sun Belt isn't likely to spark 'fear' in the heart of their opponent, yet, but I disagree with you that they aren't becoming more competitive, I think the evidence is in my favor.
For example, 2004, Troy St. was a very competitive team, in the Sun Belt, beating Missouri and coming close to beating some other teams.
2005 wasn't the same story, but I found it interesting that someone else would 'step-up'. It would appear to me that the likely 'heir apparent' is Arkansas St, or even some of the other schools. No, they weren't an outstanding conference, top-to-bottom, but they never have been, that's simply just a continuation on past events, but applied to the present.
I don't really look at N. Texas as being a 'powerhouse' but they have some tradition, and would appear to be the 'strongest' Sun Belt team.
They weren't competitive last year, that would appear to 'signal' a trasition, from one team being competitive, to several, and that's exactly what happened. Several teams were competitive, not just one.
Arkansas St, might not have been the best Sun Belt team. They beat Louisiana-Lafayette, but at home, and by a small margin. Louisiana-Lafayette wasn't selected for a bowl, traditionally, only one Sun Belt team has qualified, but last year, Troy St also did, playing N. Illinios in the Silicon Valley Classic (and playing competitively).
N. Illinois appeared to have the inside track on the MAC title, last year, beating W. Michigan (another competive team), before losing to Akron.
These things are all relevant, because they give some idea how those conferneces compare. Akron likely was better than either Arkansas St, or Louisiana Lafayette, but they will be playing N. Texas next year.
That's why I said it was a 'competitive' scheduling of teams. N. Texas will see how they compare with the MAC champion, and vice-versa.
Anyway, I might agree that in general the Sun Belt isn't a very good conference, but they are improving. There's too much evidence to support it. They lost former Big West teams to the WAC, but that was partly because the WAC is predominantly Big West in design. the Sun Belt is i'ts own confernece, and it really has no ties to the Big West I can think of, anymore. I hope it will continue to improve, and it could become a lot more competitive if it were to 'add' teams, that share its geography. Louisiana Tech would be an excellent addition, as would Tulane. Even UCF would appear more suited, geographically to the Sun Belt than to C-USA. If those teams were to 'join' Sun Belt, I think the Sun Belt would automatically become a competitive confernece.

[ktffan]

2004 was the banner year for the Sun Belt. They've step back in remission. Troy was at least competative prior to 2005 and North Texas was actually a decent team who fell far down. The Sun Belt in 2005 was a matter of which teams weren't the worst, not which were the best. I've been pulling for the Sun Belt for years and believe me, last year was a disappointment. From that, I'm not sure that the conference really is getting better.

[colorado_loves_football]

2004 was the banner year for the Sun Belt. They've step back in remission. Troy was at least competative prior to 2005 and North Texas was actually a decent team who fell far down. The Sun Belt in 2005 was a matter of which teams weren't the worst, not which were the best. I've been pulling for the Sun Belt for years and believe me, last year was a disappointment. From that, I'm not sure that the conference really is getting better.

I agree with you in principle.
To this point, anyway, the Sun Belt hasn't shown themselves to be a competitive conference. N. Texas is the only team I can think of that has shown much in the way of 'competitiveness' and they were obviously not as good a team, last year, as they were in previous years.
That could change, however. You have to remember that the ACC's raid of the Big East prompted fairly substantial changes, in other conferences. The Sun Belt was affected, along with C-USA and the WAC. All three conferences underwent major revision, in order to remain competitive. Sun Belt's approach was to capitalize on its geography. They are now a more 'representative' conference, geographically, to the S.E. Whether or not they will remain a 'competitive' conference is still something of a mystery.
But, if nothing else, they took proactive steps toward maintaining their 'status' in I-A, similar I suppose to how the Big East ,but without having to 'raid' another conference.
Still, I think it says something when 3 Sun Belt teams are 'added' to an established conference, in the WAC. And the WAC maintained it's place as a 'major' conference, as did C-USA, although both were admittedly 'weaker'. My point is that those conferneces will likely improve, over time. The Sun Belt has yet to really establish itself. I think they will become a more regionally appropriate confernece, and that will likely give them more advantage with respect to recruiting and putting themselves on the 'map'. But I'll grant you that really hasn't happened, yet. They are a work in progress.

[ktffan]

2004 was the banner year for the Sun Belt. They've step back in remission. Troy was at least competative prior to 2005 and North Texas was actually a decent team who fell far down. The Sun Belt in 2005 was a matter of which teams weren't the worst, not which were the best. I've been pulling for the Sun Belt for years and believe me, last year was a disappointment. From that, I'm not sure that the conference really is getting better.

I don't disagree with you, entirely. I think the schools that went to the WAC, (New Mexico St, Utah St, and Idaho) were probably the most competitive of the bunch, outside of N. Texas. So, we actually agree on that point, believe it or not.
My point, was that since N. Texas didn't win the confernece, (as they have since 2001) that's likely one sign the conference is improving, but it could simply be an indication that N. Texas is losing their competitive 'edge'. But I'm inclined to believe it's the former, rather than the latter.

Since the Sun Belt became far less competative in relation to other conferences, I go with the latter.

[colorado_loves_football]

Since the Sun Belt became far less competative in relation to other conferences, I go with the latter.

I agree with you to a point, but like I said, they are still establishing themselves, with respect to the rest of the NCAA. Who knows what might yet happen in the future? I think you are maybe being pre-mature in your assessment of where they 'stack-up'. N. Texas, in general is a competitive football team. Colorado played them in 2004, and I was mostly impressed with how N. Texas played, given how the game was in Colorado, and they were a Sun-Belt team.

You dont' go from being an unheralded team, to being a 'dominant' team in one year. I know N. Texas was disappointing, in 2005, but so was Troy St. Both teams were competitive 2004, in general. Both need to 'step-up' their play if they are going to be competitive with the rest of the NCAA. But I give both teams credit for making the Sun Belt something other than 'average' in 2004. 2005 was a different story, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Arkansas St, and Louisiana Lafayette weren't competitive, they just weren't as good as N.Texas was.

[Eric]

I think that Darrell Dickey won't accept losses like 54-2 against Tulsa anymore. He is used to winning, and the Mean Green were terrible last year. I think that North Texas will ressurect and win the Sun Belt this year, but Florida International should be able to challenge them. The Golden Panthers were very competitive down the stretch winning against the meat of the Sun Belt conference. Florida Atlantic will eventually be better in my opinion, once they get some offensive consistency. FIU is ahead in the D1 learning curve, but FAU will get there, and in my opinion, the 2 schools will be the face of the conference while UNT becomes sort of like the La Tech of the WAC where they finish in the top 4 every year, get 7 wins a few times, and never seems to make a bowl game.

You have to admit though, the Sun Belt brings, outside of the WAC, the most fun football to watch. I always watch the Sun Belt Game of the Week on ESPN Gameplan, especially when Arkansas State is playing.

[colorado_loves_football]

I appreciate your comments, as applied to the Sun Belt. They obviously arne't in the same 'category' as any of the majors, but they are improving, at least in my opinion. N. Texas used to be the only competitive team, in the Sun Belt. Now there are several teams, including Arkansas St. So, it's maybe a reflection of how much better they are now than they were, in 2001.
N. Texas is probably having to deal with the fact they aren't going to dominate every year. They were so much better than everyone else, they likely assumed they would 'cakewalk' through a modified Sun Belt, and didn't. I don't know how good they will be in 2006. They weren't very good in 2005, obviously, but neither for that matter was Troy St.
I believe both teams will likely be a lot better, at least I hope so.
I would like Louisiana Tech to join the Sun Belt, maybe it will happen.

[billybud]

The ACC may be the most competitive with the toughest over all group of teams. The ACC, again, were tops (with B-12) in bowl wins...the ACC has the best bowl winning percentage over the last six years (and all time).

Pundits had FSU, BC, VT, Miami, and Clemson all winning the ACC.

1...FSU loses three ACC games to Clemson, NC State, and Virginia but gives the 11-1 Big Ten Champ all they wanted in triple OT. Beats the ACC Big 3 of VT, Miami, and BC.

2...VT beats WVU and Louisville and loses to Miami and FSU.

3...Clemson beats South Carolina (always) and FSU, loses three games in OT. Beats Colorado in bowl.

4...NC State shut out South Florida in the bowl...NC St. beat FSU

5...BC wins 9...wins their 6th bowl in a row

6...GT beats Auburn, Miami..

7...Va. goes 3-5 in ACC but beats FSU and Minnesota in bowl

Even poor ole perrenial ACC bottom dwellar Wake Forest (seldom above .500) is tough...they played Purdue twice...beat em and played em to 10-6...in 1996, Wake only won one ACC game but beat the Big Ten Co-Champ...in four games the Big Ten (NW and Purdue) have not managed a winning record against Wake. Wake also plays tough in the bowls...(the few times they get to go) they annihilated Oregon 38-17 in 2002. Wake has beaten Boston College two years back to back in o3 and 04.

[ktffan]

The ACC may be the most competitive with the toughest over all group of teams. The ACC, again, were tops (with B-12) in bowl wins...the ACC has the best bowl winning percentage over the last six years (and all time).

The best bowl winning percentage over the last 6 years belongs to the Big West, followed by the MAC.

The best bowl winning percentage all time most certainly does not belong to the ACC.

[colorado_loves_football]

The ACC may be the most competitive with the toughest over all group of teams. The ACC, again, were tops (with B-12) in bowl wins...the ACC has the best bowl winning percentage over the last six years (and all time).

The best bowl winning percentage over the last 6 years belongs to the Big West, followed by the MAC.

The best bowl winning percentage all time most certainly does not belong to the ACC.

I thought the ACC was competiive but I also thought they were somewhat disappointing in the Bowls.
Clemson beating Colorado wasn't that impressive, Colorado had struggled at the end of the year but still nearly beat the Tigers.
Georgia Tech lost to Utah. FSU lost to Penn St.
Virginia Tech struggled to beat a Louisville team that many thought wasn't as good as they were supposed to be.
N.C.St beating S. Florida didn't impress me all that much, I was more impressed that S. Florida was competitive, being a 6-5 team, in the Big East, and playing a superior opponent.
Miami losing by a huge margin to LSU didn't impress me much.
Boston College nearly squandered a huge halftime advantage, but Jared Zabransky gave the game away at the end, otherwise Boise St is the winner of the MPC Computers bowl.
Still, I will admit, that in general the ACC is a pretty respectable conference. Just didn't show it in the bowls.

[Derek]

The ACC may be the most competitive with the toughest over all group of teams. The ACC, again, were tops (with B-12) in bowl wins...the ACC has the best bowl winning percentage over the last six years (and all time).

The best bowl winning percentage over the last 6 years belongs to the Big West, followed by the MAC.

The best bowl winning percentage all time most certainly does not belong to the ACC.

I thought the ACC was competiive but I also thought they were somewhat disappointing in the Bowls.
Clemson beating Colorado wasn't that impressive, Colorado had struggled at the end of the year but still nearly beat the Tigers.
Georgia Tech lost to Utah. FSU lost to Penn St.
Virginia Tech struggled to beat a Louisville team that many thought wasn't as good as they were supposed to be.
N.C.St beating S. Florida didn't impress me all that much, I was more impressed that S. Florida was competitive, being a 6-5 team, in the Big East, and playing a superior opponent.
Miami losing by a huge margin to LSU didn't impress me much.
Boston College nearly squandered a huge halftime advantage, but Jared Zabransky gave the game away at the end, otherwise Boise St is the winner of the MPC Computers bowl.
Still, I will admit, that in general the ACC is a pretty respectable conference. Just didn't show it in the bowls.

That's true....the VT showing really surprised me.

And the Miami/LSU bowl game was a COMPLETE shocker.

Overall, I still expect the ACC to catch the SEC, Big 10 in a few years. There are many good schools there.

It would not surprise me to see GA, lose to Tech after 5 years of whoopin da tar out of em.

The coach and the whole program has momentum, I will even go as far to say that GT will have a major bowl next year, Gator bowl at minimum.

[mountainman]

Did I imagine it or wasn't Georgia Tech recently sanctioned by the NCAA and has or is going to lose some scholarships?

[Derek]

That was only basketball I believe....Maybe im wrong.