(11-09-2013 09:14 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 10:28 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  MAC highest rated non-AQ conference using next year's formula for distributing revenue to the conferences.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/d...n-illinois

The formula currently shows the MAC has the best of those leagues followed by the Mountain West, Sun Belt and Conference USA. That, despite Fresno State -- from the Mountain West -- being ahead of Northern Illinois -- from the MAC -- in the BCS standings.
.

The only people in the seats at the Miami game were the bands. Maybe you are having a bad year, but come on...

It was a Wednesday night game, they are winless and this is a program that is 19th all time in win %.

(11-09-2013 07:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 06:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the computers are what counts however.

One point- next year, AAC is in there- and I think they are well ahead of even the MAC this year.

I have posted the historical Sagarin numbers before and the AAC is ahead of the other G5 conferences by a wide margin.

With the amount of games on National TV and the diverse recruiting grounds the AAC should be able to maintain their margin on the G5. The bottom fell out of UConn this year but one has to think they'll be back soon and other programs that are down now have the resources to improve.

Are they going to use that method next year? And since the BCS is going away, will those computer ratings systems still exist? Some of them exist only for the BCS (Sagarin's ELO).

(11-10-2013 01:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 07:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 06:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the computers are what counts however.

One point- next year, AAC is in there- and I think they are well ahead of even the MAC this year.

I have posted the historical Sagarin numbers before and the AAC is ahead of the other G5 conferences by a wide margin.

With the amount of games on National TV and the diverse recruiting grounds the AAC should be able to maintain their margin on the G5. The bottom fell out of UConn this year but one has to think they'll be back soon and other programs that are down now have the resources to improve.

Are they going to use that method next year? And since the BCS is going away, will those computer ratings systems still exist? Some of them exist only for the BCS (Sagarin's ELO).

It may not be the exact same, but something like the BCS computers will have to be used. The selection committee is replacing the current BCS computer poll-human poll combination But since the selection committee isn't going to rank all 126 teams, something else will have to be used by the G5 conferences to determine relative conference strength.

(11-10-2013 02:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It may not be the exact same, but something like the BCS computers will have to be used. The selection committee is replacing the current BCS computer poll-human poll combination But since the selection committee isn't going to rank all 126 teams, something else will have to be used by the G5 conferences to determine relative conference strength.

I thought they were going to rank everyone... and publish their top 25 at 4 points throughout the season.

Quote:After each regular-season meeting, the committee will publish a top 25, which is intended to reflect the committee's thoughts at that moment. Hancock and several committee members said their goal was to be flexible. Although Hancock said a goal is to have a transparent process, individual ballots will not be published at any point.

Full USA Today story...

(11-10-2013 11:49 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 02:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It may not be the exact same, but something like the BCS computers will have to be used. The selection committee is replacing the current BCS computer poll-human poll combination But since the selection committee isn't going to rank all 126 teams, something else will have to be used by the G5 conferences to determine relative conference strength.

I thought they were going to rank everyone... and publish their top 25 at 4 points throughout the season.

Quote:After each regular-season meeting, the committee will publish a top 25, which is intended to reflect the committee's thoughts at that moment. Hancock and several committee members said their goal was to be flexible. Although Hancock said a goal is to have a transparent process, individual ballots will not be published at any point.

Full USA Today story...

Doesn't say anything about ranking everyone. They will study enough schools to determine and develop a top 25. I have not seen any indication of thier intention to rank everyone. The selection committees purpose is to fill the playoffs and access bowls---ranking all of FBS is not necessary to accomplish that. Now, I would not be surprised if they create some computer formula similar to the RPI that will serve as a base measure. But the selection committee is not going to watch game film and study statistics on the bottom 60 teams in the FBS just so the G5 can figure out how to split thier money.

For all we know it might even fall to the G5 to create a computer model for that purpose----Or perhaps the G5 will just use a combination of the BCS models already in existence to handle that job.

(11-09-2013 11:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This is why I don't think the AAC and even the MWC will enjoy the company they currently keep. There's enough between the two, with BYU, to make another conference. The question is: can they work together?

I personally think it's a good idea, but that's essentially what the old Big East attempted when it brought on Boise State and San Diego State and it all fell apart. At the end of the day, there wasn't any extra TV value generated from that coast-to-coast conference despite the fact that it would have been a cut above competitively over the other Group of Five leagues. Plus, BYU simply isn't ever joining a non-power conference at this point - it's a non-starter for their leadership. It's Big 12 or independence for them. Scheduling and playing for conference championships doesn't matter for that school - *perception* of being a power player matters, and they have that with independence in a way that they wouldn't by joining a non-power league.

(11-10-2013 02:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This is why I don't think the AAC and even the MWC will enjoy the company they currently keep. There's enough between the two, with BYU, to make another conference. The question is: can they work together?

I personally think it's a good idea, but that's essentially what the old Big East attempted when it brought on Boise State and San Diego State and it all fell apart. At the end of the day, there wasn't any extra TV value generated from that coast-to-coast conference despite the fact that it would have been a cut above competitively over the other Group of Five leagues. Plus, BYU simply isn't ever joining a non-power conference at this point - it's a non-starter for their leadership. It's Big 12 or independence for them. Scheduling and playing for conference championships doesn't matter for that school - *perception* of being a power player matters, and they have that with independence in a way that they wouldn't by joining a non-power league.

I still think such a league is viable. Perhaps--without BYU. Though I do think it would be possible to get BYU Olympic sports to join along with a Notre Dame type agreement for 4 or 5 football games and inclusion in the conference bowl agreements. Such an agreement would likely be beneficial to both BYU and a new nationwide conference.

Something like this would work--especially if non-revenue sports were primarily limited to divisional play.

East--

UConn
Temple
Memphis
Cinci
USF
UCF
ECU
Army (football only)
Navy (football only)
VCU (basketball only)
UMass (basketball only)

West

Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa
Air Force (football only)
Boise
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
BYU-basketball only

It might also work better if it were not quite nationwide, maybe 3/4. In that model, Colorado St and maybe one of Texas St/UTSA/Rice would replace the far western Fresno and SDSU.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/B...0_2013.pdf

"Other teams receiving votes:
Minnesota 97;Nebraska 90; Mississippi 41; Duke 28; Ball State 23; Notre Dame 18;"

Ball State ahead of Notre Dame!

Ball State now officially the best team in Indiana (indiana, purdue, notre dame)
Northern Illinois best team in Illinois (northwestern, illinois)
Buffalo best team in New York (syracuse, army)

MAC is doing well owning 3 states over the BCS !

(11-10-2013 12:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 11:49 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Full USA Today story...

Doesn't say anything about ranking everyone. They will study enough schools to determine and develop a top 25. I have not seen any indication of thier intention to rank everyone. The selection committees purpose is to fill the playoffs and access bowls---ranking all of FBS is not necessary to accomplish that. Now, I would not be surprised if they create some computer formula similar to the RPI that will serve as a base measure. But the selection committee is not going to watch game film and study statistics on the bottom 60 teams in the FBS just so the G5 can figure out how to split thier money.

For all we know it might even fall to the G5 to create a computer model for that purpose----Or perhaps the G5 will just use a combination of the BCS models already in existence to handle that job.

The article linked, says...

Quote:Although committee members will be expected to represent a national perspective, they will each be assigned a region or conference to monitor during the season. "In all likelihood," Hancock said, "they would not monitor the conference they're affiliated with."

Doesn't sound like they're just looking at 25 teams to me... sounds like everyone is getting reviewed... strength of schedule, common opponents, conference, injuries, etc...

(11-10-2013 06:32 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 12:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 11:49 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Full USA Today story...

Doesn't say anything about ranking everyone. They will study enough schools to determine and develop a top 25. I have not seen any indication of thier intention to rank everyone. The selection committees purpose is to fill the playoffs and access bowls---ranking all of FBS is not necessary to accomplish that. Now, I would not be surprised if they create some computer formula similar to the RPI that will serve as a base measure. But the selection committee is not going to watch game film and study statistics on the bottom 60 teams in the FBS just so the G5 can figure out how to split thier money.

For all we know it might even fall to the G5 to create a computer model for that purpose----Or perhaps the G5 will just use a combination of the BCS models already in existence to handle that job.

The article linked, says...

Quote:Although committee members will be expected to represent a national perspective, they will each be assigned a region or conference to monitor during the season. "In all likelihood," Hancock said, "they would not monitor the conference they're affiliated with."

Doesn't sound like they're just looking at 25 teams to me... sounds like everyone is getting reviewed... strength of schedule, common opponents, conference, injuries, etc...

I didn't say they were just looking at 25 teams. I said they were studying enough teams to produce a reliable top 25. They can pretty much instantly discard the bottom half of any conference they are assigned to. Theres certainly not going to be any top 25 teams in the bottom half of a G5 conference.

The MAC is a good conference. Most of the schools have been playing longer than most PAC/Big 12 schools, and these are mostly large schools (average enrollment is higher than the ACC and comparable to the Big 12).

A few years ago I was worried for the MAC because they had been pitiful since Miami's excellent 2003 season. But the conference has experienced a real resurgance in the last few years.

(11-10-2013 02:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This is why I don't think the AAC and even the MWC will enjoy the company they currently keep. There's enough between the two, with BYU, to make another conference. The question is: can they work together?

I personally think it's a good idea, but that's essentially what the old Big East attempted when it brought on Boise State and San Diego State and it all fell apart. At the end of the day, there wasn't any extra TV value generated from that coast-to-coast conference despite the fact that it would have been a cut above competitively over the other Group of Five leagues. Plus, BYU simply isn't ever joining a non-power conference at this point - it's a non-starter for their leadership. It's Big 12 or independence for them. Scheduling and playing for conference championships doesn't matter for that school - *perception* of being a power player matters, and they have that with independence in a way that they wouldn't by joining a non-power league.

It fell apart because the western teams had no real conference. The football doesn't allow more than 12 with the formula so you have to have 2 conferences of 6 with basketball only's to make it work. It would be really far fetched but here is a pipe dream:

West:
Fresno
SDSU
UNLV
Boise
BYU/San Jose if they won't come
New Mexico
Gonzaga
Long Beach State
St Mary's
Pacific

East
UCF
USF
Houston
SMU
Cincinatti
ECU
Wichita State
VCU
St Louis
La Salle

(11-10-2013 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 02:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This is why I don't think the AAC and even the MWC will enjoy the company they currently keep. There's enough between the two, with BYU, to make another conference. The question is: can they work together?

I personally think it's a good idea, but that's essentially what the old Big East attempted when it brought on Boise State and San Diego State and it all fell apart. At the end of the day, there wasn't any extra TV value generated from that coast-to-coast conference despite the fact that it would have been a cut above competitively over the other Group of Five leagues. Plus, BYU simply isn't ever joining a non-power conference at this point - it's a non-starter for their leadership. It's Big 12 or independence for them. Scheduling and playing for conference championships doesn't matter for that school - *perception* of being a power player matters, and they have that with independence in a way that they wouldn't by joining a non-power league.

I still think such a league is viable. Perhaps--without BYU. Though I do think it would be possible to get BYU Olympic sports to join along with a Notre Dame type agreement for 4 or 5 football games and inclusion in the conference bowl agreements. Such an agreement would likely be beneficial to both BYU and a new nationwide conference.

Something like this would work--especially if non-revenue sports were primarily limited to divisional play.

East--

UConn
Temple
Memphis
Cinci
USF
UCF
ECU
Army (football only)
Navy (football only)
VCU (basketball only)
UMass (basketball only)

West

Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa
Air Force (football only)
Boise
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
BYU-basketball only

It might also work better if it were not quite nationwide, maybe 3/4. In that model, Colorado St and maybe one of Texas St/UTSA/Rice would replace the far western Fresno and SDSU.

Why would you stay out of California? To make it really work you have to start with Florida and CA and add east and west from there. With a huge population and only 4 P-5 teams there is a reason almost every BCS buster has heavily recruited CA. If you want to lock down the Non-AQ bid you leave CA open at your peril. That mistake was exactly the mistake the MWC made by taking only SDSU.

(11-12-2013 02:20 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 03:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 02:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 11:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This is why I don't think the AAC and even the MWC will enjoy the company they currently keep. There's enough between the two, with BYU, to make another conference. The question is: can they work together?

I personally think it's a good idea, but that's essentially what the old Big East attempted when it brought on Boise State and San Diego State and it all fell apart. At the end of the day, there wasn't any extra TV value generated from that coast-to-coast conference despite the fact that it would have been a cut above competitively over the other Group of Five leagues. Plus, BYU simply isn't ever joining a non-power conference at this point - it's a non-starter for their leadership. It's Big 12 or independence for them. Scheduling and playing for conference championships doesn't matter for that school - *perception* of being a power player matters, and they have that with independence in a way that they wouldn't by joining a non-power league.

I still think such a league is viable. Perhaps--without BYU. Though I do think it would be possible to get BYU Olympic sports to join along with a Notre Dame type agreement for 4 or 5 football games and inclusion in the conference bowl agreements. Such an agreement would likely be beneficial to both BYU and a new nationwide conference.

Something like this would work--especially if non-revenue sports were primarily limited to divisional play.

East--

UConn
Temple
Memphis
Cinci
USF
UCF
ECU
Army (football only)
Navy (football only)
VCU (basketball only)
UMass (basketball only)

West

Houston
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa
Air Force (football only)
Boise
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
BYU-basketball only

It might also work better if it were not quite nationwide, maybe 3/4. In that model, Colorado St and maybe one of Texas St/UTSA/Rice would replace the far western Fresno and SDSU.

Why would you stay out of California? To make it really work you have to start with Florida and CA and add east and west from there. With a huge population and only 4 P-5 teams there is a reason almost every BCS buster has heavily recruited CA. If you want to lock down the Non-AQ bid you leave CA open at your peril. That mistake was exactly the mistake the MWC made by taking only SDSU.

I tend to agree with you. I was just giving another options that's more travel friendly. Basically you extend into the Rockies and only Boise is west of that range. Since this an all-sports league, travel is an issue. Personally, I like the idea do coast to coast league. It makes the most sense for tv. It's not like staying east of the Rockies is going to make a significant difference in traveling fans. It would make the league marginally better for student athletes. That said, I think travel for athletes could be controlled in a full coast-to-coast league by having mostly divisional play for non-revenue sports.