by 2013 conference
1 SBC 2-0
2 SEC 7-3
3 P12 6-3
3 Ind 2-1
5 Big 12 3-3
5 CUSA 3-3
5 MWC 3-3
8 ACC 5-6
9 AAC 2-3
10 Big Ten 2-5
11 MAC 0-5

by 2014 conference
1 SBC 2-0
2 SEC 7-3
3 P12 6-3
3 Ind 2-1
5 ACC 6-5
6 Big 12 3-3
6 MWC 3-3
6 CUSA 2-2
9 AAC 2-3
10 Big Ten 2-7
11 MAC 0-5

I thought that CUSA was losing ECU (won bowl game) and Tulane (lost bowl game), so they would be 2-2 by 2014 conference?

(01-07-2014 09:18 AM)freshtop Wrote:  I thought that CUSA was losing ECU (won bowl game) and Tulane (lost bowl game), so they would be 2-2 by 2014 conference?

corrected.

You seem to like math, How about a Bowl Quality Index

8 pts for a BCS NCG win
4 pts for a BCS NCG losss
4 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG win
2 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG loss
2 pts for a Non-BCS bowl win
1 pt for a non-BCS bowl loss

then add up the total points and divide by the total teams in the conference.

(01-07-2014 09:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You seem to like math, How about a Bowl Quality Index

8 pts for a BCS NCG win
4 pts for a BCS NCG losss
4 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG win
2 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG loss
2 pts for a Non-BCS bowl win
1 pt for a non-BCS bowl loss

then add up the total points and divide by the total teams in the conference.

So despite losing all of their bowl games, the MAC gets more points than the Sun Belt based on the total number of games played

(01-07-2014 09:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 09:18 AM)freshtop Wrote:  I thought that CUSA was losing ECU (won bowl game) and Tulane (lost bowl game), so they would be 2-2 by 2014 conference?

corrected.

For a second time within two days on this board, Goodness Gracious! You have taken 2013 bowl results....and then re-arranged them by the 2014 conference structure.....something that you called me a troll and stupid for doing. And why was I doing that?

Yesterday, in another thread, you made the statement that NonBCS conferences would not be guaranteed a slot in the 8 team national playoff, something I was saying Day 1 of the Times Square Banners. It has been my observation, over the years, that the BCS is going to first look out for its own good....and only do for NonBCS teams what public pressures force them to do.,

To solve a problem, the reality of the situation must be understood....in order to come up with a solution and, if push comes to shove, take down a barrier. Sometimes, I think it takes a lot of soul searching to change a position as you have....so I compliment you on your two posts (observations) these past few days. It is not always easy to change strongly held positions, especially for one who has called me a troll numerous times.

(01-07-2014 09:55 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 09:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You seem to like math, How about a Bowl Quality Index

8 pts for a BCS NCG win
4 pts for a BCS NCG losss
4 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG win
2 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG loss
2 pts for a Non-BCS bowl win
1 pt for a non-BCS bowl loss

then add up the total points and divide by the total teams in the conference.

So despite losing all of their bowl games, the MAC gets more points than the Sun Belt based on the total number of games played

yes, because they actually made it into more than two bowl games...

The SBC had more bowl eligible teams than two.

It looks like the MAC and Big10 had an atrocious year.

The SEC and PAC-12 were favored in all but 2 of their 19 bowl games, FWIW. Using expected results, both leagues actually underperformed relative to their regular season prowess (that doesn't mean that they aren't the two best leagues, only that they didn't perform as well as they did in the regular season).

(01-07-2014 12:22 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 09:55 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 09:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You seem to like math, How about a Bowl Quality Index

8 pts for a BCS NCG win
4 pts for a BCS NCG losss
4 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG win
2 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG loss
2 pts for a Non-BCS bowl win
1 pt for a non-BCS bowl loss

then add up the total points and divide by the total teams in the conference.

So despite losing all of their bowl games, the MAC gets more points than the Sun Belt based on the total number of games played

yes, because they actually made it into more than two bowl games...

Actually, that's incorrect.

Sun Belt -- four total points for the two non-BCS wins divided by two equals two
MAC -- five total points for five non-BCS losses divided by five equals one (the lowest possible rating under this method)

So the Sun Belt leads the MAC despite only appearing in two bowls.

(01-07-2014 03:49 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 12:22 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 09:55 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 09:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You seem to like math, How about a Bowl Quality Index

8 pts for a BCS NCG win
4 pts for a BCS NCG losss
4 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG win
2 pts for a BCS bowl non-NCG loss
2 pts for a Non-BCS bowl win
1 pt for a non-BCS bowl loss

then add up the total points and divide by the total teams in the conference.

So despite losing all of their bowl games, the MAC gets more points than the Sun Belt based on the total number of games played

yes, because they actually made it into more than two bowl games...

Actually, that's incorrect.

Sun Belt -- four total points for the two non-BCS wins divided by two equals two
MAC -- five total points for five non-BCS losses divided by five equals one (the lowest possible rating under this method)

So the Sun Belt leads the MAC despite only appearing in two bowls.

Actually my intention was to divide by the total teams in the conference.

So for example

Sunbelt: (2 wins X 2 + 0 losses X 1) /8 = 4/8 = 0.500
MAC: (0 wins X 2 + 1 losses X 5) / 13 = 5/13 = 0.385

Sunbelt wins!

BQI ranking of all conferences

ACC: 1.714
SEC: 1.500
Pac-12 1.417
B12: 1.200
B10: 1.000
AAC 0.818
MWC: 0.750
SBC: 0.500
CUSA: 0.429
MAC: 0.385

All of these conferences obviously did not play comparable competition

(01-07-2014 12:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It looks like the MAC and Big10 had an atrocious year.

Sadly enough, it was a pretty typical year for the MAC and B1G in bowls.

In 2011 the MAC went 4-1 and then placed 4 schools in the Top 25 at some point in 2012. 2010 was when NIU started its string of MAC West titles. Ohio won the MAC East in 2009 and that is when they started becoming a consistent every year bowl team.

I think maybe 2009-2012 was an upcycle for the MAC and 2013 is a slide back to the historical average. 2013 was a slightly above average year with NIUs run in the Top 25 just 2008 had Ball State finish 12-2.

2014 is looking at massive graduation losses at Ohio, NIU and Buffalo and BG lost its coach. Likely the MAC doesn't have anyone in the Top 25 next year.