Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Author Message
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #101
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-18-2013 10:30 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(06-18-2013 10:11 AM)Underdog Wrote:  
(06-18-2013 10:01 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  The P5 still won't consider them a power conference no matter what they do. Having good football teams isn't enough, apparently.

I understand your point, which is why I used the word "almost." We would be preceived as being much better than the other G5 and "almost" or just as good as the weakest P5 when it comes to performance on the field.

Probably. I just wonder if that would help any.

You might not agree with the logic, but read my first post on page 10 for your answer.
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2013 10:40 AM by Underdog.)
06-18-2013 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #102
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-18-2013 08:49 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The highest rated non-AQ school gets an auto-bid to a BCS game. If a non-AQ school is ranked in the top 4 in the country the school earns one of the 4 semi-final slots (just like the P5). The way I see it, the winner of the combined AAC/MW would be the highest ranked non-AQ about 90% of the time. So I feel like the combined MW/ACC would be in a BCS game so often, they would end up being a quasi-AQ conference. They might even get a school in the playoff every so often.

U-dog, my perception is that it doesn't help AAC and MW to merge any more so than it would help CUSA and MAC to merge.

An all-out merger doesn't help because the strength of teams top-to-bottom is not unlike the strength of teams top-to-bottom in either of those leagues individually.

What would help, if Thompson and Aresco feel they must, is to do what I've proposed and create a power league with an in-season mini-playoff to which the others in the two conferences can ascend into. What would compel them to think they must remains a question for me... perhaps they would believe such a move would portend a second major bowl slot on occasion? I dunno. I'd have to think more on that one.

Btw... aside... I appreciate the gesture toward eliminating the peripheral irrelevant chatter in the thread. Things seem to be more substantive 'round here, and that's great.
06-18-2013 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #103
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-18-2013 11:38 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(06-18-2013 08:49 AM)Underdog Wrote:  The highest rated non-AQ school gets an auto-bid to a BCS game. If a non-AQ school is ranked in the top 4 in the country the school earns one of the 4 semi-final slots (just like the P5). The way I see it, the winner of the combined AAC/MW would be the highest ranked non-AQ about 90% of the time. So I feel like the combined MW/ACC would be in a BCS game so often, they would end up being a quasi-AQ conference. They might even get a school in the playoff every so often.

U-dog, my perception is that it doesn't help AAC and MW to merge any more so than it would help CUSA and MAC to merge.

An all-out merger doesn't help because the strength of teams top-to-bottom is not unlike the strength of teams top-to-bottom in either of those leagues individually.


What would help, if Thompson and Aresco feel they must, is to do what I've proposed and create a power league with an in-season mini-playoff to which the others in the two conferences can ascend into. What would compel them to think they must remains a question for me... perhaps they would believe such a move would portend a second major bowl slot on occasion? I dunno. I'd have to think more on that one.

Btw... aside... I appreciate the gesture toward eliminating the peripheral irrelevant chatter in the thread. Things seem to be more substantive 'round here, and that's great.

Sturt, I can’t take credit for a suggestion that I didn’t recommend—it was Attackcoog. You need to look at his suggestion from the perspective of the AAC and MWC. By merging the best schools in both conferences, we would be far better than a MAC/CUSA alliance. I think you’ve overlooked the fact that the AAC took the best schools in CUSA. Consequently, your suggestion is an alliance of the CUSA remains after the AAC raid and the best of the MAC. In my opinion, even if you included the best of the SBC in your proposal, the best of the three conferences would be perceived inferior to an AAC/MWC merger. We would have a conference with teams that could compete or beat almost any team in the ACC and PAC 12—two of the weakest football conferences of the P5 in my opinion. Moreover, the perception of your MAC/CUSA alliance would not be on the same level as an AAC/MWC merger. Therefore, the idea suggested by Attackcoog would give the AAC/MWC merger a much higher perception and better chance at success than your MAC/CUSA alliance. Thus, giving us a higher percentage of being selected for an access spot to a major bowl over the MAC/CUSA alliance.
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2013 01:41 PM by Underdog.)
06-18-2013 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #104
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
If you're going to limit the merger to the best of, then that's essentially what I'm saying when I say "power league." I'd previously thought I understood it to be a complete merger.
06-18-2013 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #105
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-18-2013 02:03 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If you're going to limit the merger to the best of, then that's essentially what I'm saying when I say "power league." I'd previously thought I understood it to be a complete merger.

The reason your proposal interest me is because I commented before that too many schools are included in the aforementioned AAC/MWC merger by the member who suggested it. However, with your proposal, the weaker schools in each conference could still be affiliated with the merged conference, while the stronger schools actually represent the conference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you're suggesting for the MAC and CUSA.
06-18-2013 08:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #106
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Yep... pretty much...

The weaker schools remain in the "regular" conference... stronger schools promoted to a "best of" conference, with a built-in 3-game in-season playoff to ensure that some team--ostensibly the best--finishes the season with a flourish against prime competition. Promotion/relegation occurs every off-season so that there is a regular churning at the bottom of the premium conference and at the top of the regular conferences.
06-18-2013 10:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #107
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-18-2013 08:53 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(06-18-2013 02:03 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If you're going to limit the merger to the best of, then that's essentially what I'm saying when I say "power league." I'd previously thought I understood it to be a complete merger.

The reason your proposal interest me is because I commented before that too many schools are included in the aforementioned AAC/MWC merger by the member who suggested it. However, with your proposal, the weaker schools in each conference could still be affiliated with the merged conference, while the stronger schools actually represent the conference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you're suggesting for the MAC and CUSA.

And this is where it falls apart.... You are essentially telling eight schools in the conference to "piss off" this year. You will never get buy in on that from 66% of the conference.

Kent would have been iced out last season, No way does UB get a sniff in 2008 nor Miami in 2010.

In some meaningless detached "dungeons and dragons" Bulletin board it may have merit... awww hell it lacks merit here as well.

The MAC just send a one loss team to the Orange Bowl and had several teams ranked during the season. There is nothing to be gained for the Mid American Conference as a whole, and especially among the majority of the members.
06-19-2013 02:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #108
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-19-2013 02:21 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-18-2013 08:53 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(06-18-2013 02:03 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If you're going to limit the merger to the best of, then that's essentially what I'm saying when I say "power league." I'd previously thought I understood it to be a complete merger.

The reason your proposal interest me is because I commented before that too many schools are included in the aforementioned AAC/MWC merger by the member who suggested it. However, with your proposal, the weaker schools in each conference could still be affiliated with the merged conference, while the stronger schools actually represent the conference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you're suggesting for the MAC and CUSA.

And this is where it falls apart.... You are essentially telling eight schools in the conference to "piss off" this year. You will never get buy in on that from 66% of the conference.

Kent would have been iced out last season, No way does UB get a sniff in 2008 nor Miami in 2010.

In some meaningless detached "dungeons and dragons" Bulletin board it may have merit... awww hell it lacks merit here as well.

The MAC just send a one loss team to the Orange Bowl and had several teams ranked during the season. There is nothing to be gained for the Mid American Conference as a whole, and especially among the majority of the members.

I agree that it’s somewhat harsh Bull_In_Exile. However, it would be better than just voting the weaker schools out of the conference and having nothing to do with them. As the G5, we must attempt to overcome an insurmountable disadvantage that has been bestowed upon us by a biased system. Therefore, we need to consider alternative solutions that will give us the best chance to succeed. Nonetheless I’m still trying to understand sturt’s suggestion regarding the weaker schools: How are they affiliated with the newly merged/alliance conference?
06-19-2013 07:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wleakr Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 679
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Eastern Mich
Location:
Post: #109
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-19-2013 07:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  I agree that it’s somewhat harsh Bull_In_Exile. However, it would be better than just voting the weaker schools out of the conference and having nothing to do with them. As the G5, we must attempt to overcome an insurmountable disadvantage that has been bestowed upon us by a biased system. Therefore, we need to consider alternative solutions that will give us the best chance to succeed. Nonetheless I’m still trying to understand sturt’s suggestion regarding the weaker schools: How are they affiliated with the newly merged/alliance conference?

The G5, as a whole, don't have to overcome anything...there is already a built in spot for them in the system.

Sturts idea is not for the G5...it is specifically for C-USA & MAC in order to guarantee that someone from those conferences leapfrogs any team from the AAC or MWC for that spot...the SB (with its large number of FCS callups) is deemed not being competitive for the spot until they prove otherwise...

Actually if both sets of conferences WERE to conduct the same format as Sturt describes, the AAC/MWC combo champ would have a stronger resume than the C-USA/MAC champ and would still get the spot...

As far as how the weaker schools would be affiliated with the new system...short answer: they wouldn't...ideally those schools would gain the incentive to step up and be part of the elite. The only possible benefit they could get is a prorated portion of the conference payout that champ is entitled to. I say prorated, because if it were equal, there would be no incentive to not stay at the bottom of the conference...
06-19-2013 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #110
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
wleakr is basically right, but if I get your question, u-dog, this might cut more to the heart of what you're asking:

- Any given elite conference (aka, "Great 8") school still plays 3 regular season games each season against schools in the parent (CUSA or MAC) conference. Those 3 games do not count as official conference games, of course, but they do count in two other ways... (1) seeding for the G8's in-season playoff, and (2) figuring out who gets promoted and who gets relegated...

- Either the MAC Champion or the CUSA Champion gets promoted to the Great 8, based on which one has the better record in comparison to the lowest W/L Great 8 school associated with the champion's geographical division. (In other words, assume MAC champion Western at 7-2 and CUSA Champion Southern Miss also at 7-2; and assume that Great 8 Toledo finishes 2-7 and Great 8 Rice finishes 3-6; Western gets the nod.)

I try to emphasize that current conference football relationships are not all that corroded by this new arrangement--e.g., NIU would play 8 MAC conference games currently; as a Great 8 member, they would still play 6 games against MAC teams--3 of which would be with them in the G8, and 3 others would be in the MAC. In the playoff, they would play the first game against a CUSA school, but it would be possible that semi-final and final games would be re-matches against their former-MAC brothers.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2013 11:10 AM by _sturt_.)
06-19-2013 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #111
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-19-2013 02:21 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-18-2013 08:53 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(06-18-2013 02:03 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If you're going to limit the merger to the best of, then that's essentially what I'm saying when I say "power league." I'd previously thought I understood it to be a complete merger.

The reason your proposal interest me is because I commented before that too many schools are included in the aforementioned AAC/MWC merger by the member who suggested it. However, with your proposal, the weaker schools in each conference could still be affiliated with the merged conference, while the stronger schools actually represent the conference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you're suggesting for the MAC and CUSA.

And this is where it falls apart.... You are essentially telling eight schools in the conference to "piss off" this year. You will never get buy in on that from 66% of the conference.

Kent would have been iced out last season, No way does UB get a sniff in 2008 nor Miami in 2010.

In some meaningless detached "dungeons and dragons" Bulletin board it may have merit... awww hell it lacks merit here as well.

The MAC just send a one loss team to the Orange Bowl and had several teams ranked during the season. There is nothing to be gained for the Mid American Conference as a whole, and especially among the majority of the members.

Well said.
06-19-2013 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #112
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Bull has been negative from the outset. It's good to have people like Bull out there to criticize early on... at least, insofar the criticism focuses on the topic, and not so much on the meaningless labeling and attacking the other person... he does that far too much, and his credibility takes a hit as a result. But even with regard to criticizing content, there also can come a point where it becomes clear that the critic revels in his negativity too much to have any balanced view of the whole of the picture. That's where Bull is.

In this instance, the characterization of telling... actually 75%, not 66% (12 of 16 in each conference)... to "piss off" is a matter of using emotive words to try to sway an argument in his direction.

The whole of the picture is that 2 of the 8 schools in any division who have earned the right are getting promoted into an environment that allows them... ostensibly the strongest programs... an improved opportunity to compete for a major bowl that otherwise they would not have.

The whole of the picture, further, is that the remaining 6 schools do not actually lose anything in that process.

Anything.

They still compete for their conference's championship as they always did.

They still play the schools they're used to playing.

In fact, the 6 remaining schools have an INCREASED chance to win their division and conference, by virtue of the fact that at least 2 high-difficulty conference games would not count against them... note, those games might still be played depending on their draw of Great 8 opponents, but they would not be conference games.

Further addressing Bull's points...

To the contrary... the only thing that would have been different for Kent is that they probably would have WON the MAC Championship Game since they would have played someone other than NIU. (Another example that Bull has an agenda, and his agenda won't allow him to think any deeper about any of this than what fits with his agenda to, for some reason unknown to me, torpedo the concept... God knows I didn't run over his cat... and I'm sure he's a cat person.)

And the Orange Bowl thing has been well-covered by now... we're not talking about setting this thing up so for the purposes of gaining a SINGLE YEAR of success, but rather, we're talking about implementing a STRUCTURE that puts us all (CUSA and MAC) in a position for PERENNIAL success.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2013 12:39 PM by _sturt_.)
06-19-2013 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #113
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-19-2013 12:19 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Bull has been negative from the outset. It's good to have people like Bull out there to criticize early on... at least, insofar the criticism focuses on the topic, and not so much on the meaningless labeling and attacking the other person... he does that far too much, and his credibility takes a hit as a result. But even with regard to criticizing content, there also can come a point where it becomes clear that the critic revels in his negativity too much to have any balanced view of the whole of the picture. That's where Bull is.

In this instance, the characterization of telling... actually 75%, not 66% (12 of 16 in each conference)... to "piss off" is a matter of using emotive words to try to sway an argument in his direction.

The whole of the picture is that 2 of the 8 schools in any division who have earned the right are getting promoted into an environment that allows them... ostensibly the strongest programs... an improved opportunity to compete for a major bowl that otherwise they would not have.

The whole of the picture, further, is that the remaining 6 schools do not actually lose anything in that process.

Anything.

They still compete for their conference's championship as they always did.

They still play the schools they're used to playing.

In fact, the 6 remaining schools have an INCREASED chance to win their division and conference, by virtue of the fact that at least 2 high-difficulty conference games would not count against them... note, those games might still be played depending on their draw of Great 8 opponents, but they would not be conference games.

Further addressing Bull's points...

To the contrary... the only thing that would have been different for Kent is that they probably would have WON the MAC Championship Game since they would have played someone other than NIU. (Another example that Bull has an agenda, and his agenda won't allow him to think any deeper about any of this than what fits with his agenda to, for some reason unknown to me, torpedo the concept... God knows I didn't run over his cat... and I'm sure he's a cat person.)

And the Orange Bowl thing has been well-covered by now... we're not talking about setting this thing up so for the purposes of gaining a SINGLE YEAR of success, but rather, we're talking about implementing a STRUCTURE that puts us all (CUSA and MAC) in a position for PERENNIAL success.

You had my support for this thread until this post. You acknowledge that “Bull has been negative from the outset.” Consequently why did you continue to respond to his negativity? Why not disregard it and focus on posts that you believe merit a response? Leave it to the members that read this thread to determine the motives of others. Moreover, Bull is entitled to express his opinions regarding your suggestion—I didn’t read where he criticized you in his previous post. Furthermore, I’m unconcerned about the past between the two of you and would have preferred for you to refute what he posted regarding your suggesting, which you did and should have left the cat comment out of the response. Therefore, it is your “credibility [that] takes a hit as a result” of an unnecessary personal attack on him….

Regarding the following post:

(06-19-2013 10:26 AM)wleakr Wrote:  
(06-19-2013 07:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  I agree that it’s somewhat harsh Bull_In_Exile. However, it would be better than just voting the weaker schools out of the conference and having nothing to do with them. As the G5, we must attempt to overcome an insurmountable disadvantage that has been bestowed upon us by a biased system. Therefore, we need to consider alternative solutions that will give us the best chance to succeed. Nonetheless I’m still trying to understand sturt’s suggestion regarding the weaker schools: How are they affiliated with the newly merged/alliance conference?

The G5, as a whole, don't have to overcome anything...there is already a built in spot for them in the system.

Sturts idea is not for the G5...it is specifically for C-USA & MAC in order to guarantee that someone from those conferences leapfrogs any team from the AAC or MWC for that spot...the SB (with its large number of FCS callups) is deemed not being competitive for the spot until they prove otherwise...

Actually if both sets of conferences WERE to conduct the same format as Sturt describes, the AAC/MWC combo champ would have a stronger resume than the C-USA/MAC champ and would still get the spot...

As far as how the weaker schools would be affiliated with the new system...short answer: they wouldn't...ideally those schools would gain the incentive to step up and be part of the elite. The only possible benefit they could get is a prorated portion of the conference payout that champ is entitled to. I say prorated, because if it were equal, there would be no incentive to not stay at the bottom of the conference...

The G5 will have to overcome a system that will be more biased than before. The new college playoff system will supposedly focus on each school instead of a conference. As a result, you could have multiple schools from one conference in the playoff, which will likely happen. The additional bowls involved have their tie-ins to accommodate when not hosting a playoff game or championship. This means that the only way the G5 gains access is by getting a spot in the playoff. A G5 school would have to be ranked in the top four to gain entrance—it’s not happening (and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong). The days of Boise St and NIU getting in over a higher ranked P5 school will be over. The only option that I saw to help the AAC and MWC overcome the bowl barrier was to merge both conferences. What to do with the weaker schools in each conference is a question that I don't have an answer for. Nonetheless, my only solution is to form the strongest G5 conference from the two that could possibly gain access to the playoff.

As for my question that was put into bold type above, sturt agrees with your point. Thus he has conceded that there is a fatal flaw in his idea:

(06-19-2013 11:05 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  wleakr is basically right,
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2013 05:44 PM by Underdog.)
06-19-2013 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wleakr Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 679
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Eastern Mich
Location:
Post: #114
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
U-dog...I think I get what your saying...just thought I'd shed some light...

Sturt has posted this idea in other relevant areas of different boards...the "history" between sturt and bull is on the MAC board...while I agree on the "why not just ignore" concept to an extent, I think it does get to a point where you can't just let certain comments go...I feel everyone can express their opinion and, therefore, everyone can express a rebuttal for that opinion, so I don't see a problem with sturts comment (not taking sides...just supporting "right" to express)...

You comment about entrance into the playoff...let's be honest here...only a handful of schools was able to bust the BCS under the old rules...in some years there was no BCS buster...the most successful schools were Utah, Boise and TCU (2 of which are now in a power conference, and 1 just missed it by a chain of events that took out the BE). Hawaii and NIU can both be considered fortunate outliers...

Now under the new structure, a G5 is GUARANTEED to get a spot in a major bowl vice having to meet all the wickets of being ranked a certain level, etc, therefore, they have already overcome a significant hurdle! So we won't have years when we don't get in...

Don't get me wrong...we shouldn't rest on our laurels...but we should recognize an improved condition when we see one...now if we get someone on a role, year after year, like Boise, who started the preseason ranked in the Top 5, they may still have a shot at the playoff depending on the success/lack thereof of other teams, but truth be told, that's not expected because of the SOS of G5 and possibly not having a strong OOC...

Finally, on the weaker school comment...sturt answers that...the weaker schools don't lose ANYTHING and I think there is incentive for them to want to boost themselves into the elite...

I know this rant makes it seems like I'm a strong supporter of the idea...I'm not really...but I get what's its about...I'd like to see how things start to fall out first as its structured, and then think about ways to improve after I've seen things in action....
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2013 07:14 PM by wleakr.)
06-19-2013 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wleakr Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 679
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Eastern Mich
Location:
Post: #115
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Also, the goal of any business is to make money...

The G5, with the exception of maybe a handful of schools, does not put butts in seats or bring advertising dollars through TV ads, so its not a surprise why access is limited...
06-19-2013 07:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #116
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Quote:Sturt has posted this idea in other relevant areas of different boards...the "history" between sturt and bull is on the MAC board...while I agree on the "why not just ignore" concept to an extent, I think it does get to a point where you can't just let certain comments go...I feel everyone can express their opinion and, therefore, everyone can express a rebuttal for that opinion, so I don't see a problem with sturts comment (not taking sides...just supporting "right" to express)...

...Finally, on the weaker school comment...sturt answers that...the weaker schools don't lose ANYTHING and I think there is incentive for them to want to boost themselves into the elite...


(Nothing to add to that... :D ... other than... Bull did raise some points this time that were legitimate enough to deserve a response... and so, those were given response.)
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2013 10:08 AM by _sturt_.)
06-19-2013 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #117
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Took a couple of hours at the end of my day to construct this... perhaps it's available elsewhere, but I'm not aware of it. I believe it's good info for anyone wanting to build a case pro or con... it's just the facts.

One important caveat of note: The bar charts reflect the Sagarin conference rating averages for all teams except the top team... and the reason for that is, this helps us evaluate the theory put forth by some that playing in a weak conference is advantageous to the cause of being the top school in the BCS ratings, whereas playing in a strong conference makes it more difficult to do so.

I'll save comment, because sheesh, it's 7:30 CDT and I need to get home and feed the dog... then feed me... then feed the wife when she gets home from her nursing shift.

Hope this is helpful.

[Image: 9087591265_715ec886d7_b.jpg]
06-19-2013 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #118
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
The take home?

MWC has clearly had... no debating it... the strongest conference top-to-bottom. MWC is the only conference to have had either the best non-AQ team or runner-up every year since 2005, the year that CUSA formed as we know it (... make that "knew" it, now that July 1 is approaching). Their average Sagarin rating over that period has been 69.17, and they're likely to ratchet that up slightly as they gain Utah State and San Jose State.

The math says that the Great 8 (top 2 in CUSA East and West, and top 2 in MAC East and West) would have had a rating of... no I didn't cook this number up... it's actually 69.18 (intriguing of course since MWC is 69.17).

To those of you sober and adult enough to engage the idea and engage this discussion... that should, at least, be enough for you to sit up and stare harder at your screen to see if you can pick this apart... because all of the numbers are lining up behind this as a legitimate strategy to better our (CUSA's and MAC's) situation... so much so, that the entire... entire... setback that seemingly resulted for CUSA from the AAC defections... is more than mitgated... under this arrangement, if one's team is good enough to play in this so-called Great 8 league, the Sagarin average exceeds by a significant margin what we experienced with CUSA 2.0 (63.57).

Add-in the fact that the system will automatically and consistently and always produce a team finishing their season with three wins (ie, the conference champion, ie, the winner of the mini-playoff)--something that's not possible in a full season of round-robin games--and you have yourself set-up for the very best case scenario. Indeed, assuming that there actually is a deserving team in the two conferences, that team will be evenly competitive with the AAC and MWC top dogs.

If it's all that great, won't AAC and MWC eventually do something similar?

This is why I propose we in CUSA and MAC patent the idea, and make it proprietary.

Kidding, of course.

Seriously, they could do something similar. But I don't see the incentive for them that I do for MAC and CUSA.

Let me put it this way:

AAC is mathematically similar to what we would see from the SEC in the P5... and that MWC is similar to Big XII.

MAC/CUSA are most mathematically similar to something between the old Big East and ACC.

Were Big East and ACC to configure this same arrangement between each other, I just don't see SEC or Big XII being threatened by that. Their champions are routinely good enough individually to challenge for #1 year-in-year-out.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2013 10:04 AM by _sturt_.)
06-20-2013 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #119
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-19-2013 05:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  The G5 will have to overcome a system that will be more biased than before. The new college playoff system will supposedly focus on each school instead of a conference. As a result, you could have multiple schools from one conference in the playoff, which will likely happen. The additional bowls involved have their tie-ins to accommodate when not hosting a playoff game or championship. This means that the only way the G5 gains access is by getting a spot in the playoff. A G5 school would have to be ranked in the top four to gain entrance—it’s not happening (and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong). The days of Boise St and NIU getting in over a higher ranked P5 school will be over. The only option that I saw to help the AAC and MWC overcome the bowl barrier was to merge both conferences. What to do with the weaker schools in each conference is a question that I don't have an answer for. Nonetheless, my only solution is to form the strongest G5 conference from the two that could possibly gain access to the playoff.

I appreciate the sentiment, and perhaps this would be enough incentive for the SEC and Big XII of the lower tier to establish a premium league from between them. Certainly by virtue of the fact that there's actually been a #3 and #4 BCS rating finish by a MWC team, it warrants consideration.

Selfishly, were that to happen, I would want to see the five conferences just get together and agree on an overall progression/relegation system, period. That is, to have argued with the P5 for major bowl and playoff access for the Go5, then to essentially create a premium league from among AAC and MWC that effectively cuts off access for 2/3 of the Go5? That seems dichotomous and disingenuous.
06-20-2013 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #120
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(06-19-2013 07:17 PM)wleakr Wrote:  Also, the goal of any business is to make money...

The G5, with the exception of maybe a handful of schools, does not put butts in seats or bring advertising dollars through TV ads, so its not a surprise why access is limited...

I would just add this to that, wleakr... even within G5, there is a gulf between schools that sell SOME regular advertising and those whose games are pretty much consumed with commission-based advertising, selling things like ear wax removers and water hoses.

Hence, the difference between what CUSA 2.0 schools were able to gain in their last contract, and the defectors are still going to be getting in their AAC environment... versus what MAC and Sun Belt have gotten (... and now, rationally, CUSA 3.0).
06-22-2013 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.