(01-11-2014 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (01-11-2014 02:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: (01-11-2014 01:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (01-11-2014 01:06 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote: (01-11-2014 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Lol. The selection committee is the entity doing the ranking.
That "entity" you speak of is pulling the average from the standard rankings (USA Today and Coaches Poll) to determine which conference champion is the higher ranked school.
The bottom line....if you are in the "Group of Five" and want to reach that BCS bowl game, you better run the table to assure yourself a chance. If you don't run the table and another school from one of the "Group of Five" conferences do then they are certain to get that bid over a 1 loss team.
Nope. If they wanted that they would have stuck with the old BCS ranking systems. They purposely did away with the old system and established a seslection committee which will watch the games if relevant teams ans study statistics of the schools in question. They will consider strength of schedule and injuries. It's not going to be polls by coaches who vote for teams they have never even see play. It's going to be different.
Your fooling yourself if you think a group that studies the stuff isn't going to know that the CUSA champ was manhandled in a bowl against the #9 SEC team. You nuts if you think they are not going to consider that the MAC went 0-5 in bowls and thier near BCS buster was handled by the MW runner up. You crazy if you think that committee won't notice that NIU was blown out in thier BCS bowl and that the AAC champ just beat the #6 ranked Big12 champ. There is a difference.
Yeah---the crap teams in each G5 conference are similar. But the top of the MW and ACC are much better than the top of the other 3 G5s.
And Hawai'i beat Alabama. And Boise State beat Oklahoma. And 2012 NIU would take that spot.
Now you are making my case. Did you change your mind? Hawaii and Boise are in the MW. Like I said, the AAC and MW are going to get the benefit of the doubt. A 12-0 NIU would no longer get the nod over an 11-1 AAC/MW champ---not after the egg NIU laid in their 2012 BCS game and not after the way near 2013 BCS buster NIU got rolled by a G5 runner up. They now have placed doubt about the MAC champs in the eyes of the committee. The committee will need to see NIU wins over multiple P5 conference teams---probably over somebody not from the Big-10. NIU didn't need to win their BCS Bowl to overcome the doubters, but they needed to be more competitive. The MAC going 2-5 in 2012 bowls and 0-5 in 2013 bowls also doesn't do a lot for the conference credibility. Sure, the AAC went a pitiful 2-3, but that was also against all bowl qualified power conference teams--4 of the 5 power conference opponents having won 8 games or more.
And herein lies the biggest point of contention between the AAC schools and everyone else in the group of five: The AAC posters believe they are head and shoulders taller than the rest of us, while the rest of us see only a slightly taller midget.
Here is what that ten point win over Baylor by UCF actually bought you: You will have a ranked team to start next year, which will have some opportunities to win big games early and thus separate the AAC from everyone else. However, they will have to WIN those games against Penn State and Missouri, or else you will find yourselves right back in the pack. You won't get a free pass just for having 'AAC' painted on your fields. Now, maybe ECU can win its big games, or maybe someone else with a tough out of conference schedule can win its big games and thus earn you back that space, but you aren't going to be given a whole lot just because UCF won a big game with last year's players.
Just so we are clear on this, your other bowl winner will be in the ACC next year, one of your losers will be in the B1G, and CUSA's blowout loss to MSU is no less devasting to CUSA than the AAC's blowout loss to Vanderbilt will be to the AAC. You are gaining a team that lost 59-28 to Marshall (yet feels it has the right to talk down to them on this thread...), another that lost its bowl game to the Sun Belt, and a third that finished 3-9. I'm sorry, but to think that the AAC is magically going to be head and shoulders better than CUSA or anyone else next year is outright delusional. You have just as good of a chance of producing a school that has a special season as anyone else in the group of five does.
The number one goal of any Go5 school is to eliminate all doubt by going undefeated. Go take a look at Marshall's OOC schedule and tell me that anyone else with as much coming back next year has as good of a chance of going undefeated as they do.
Priority number two: In lieu of going undefeated, make yourself look as good as possible when losing. Should UCF or ECU lose out of conference, they have an excellent chance of pulling this one off. However, so do teams like Southern Miss. Scheduling challenging P5 opponents isn't magically limited to the AAC.
Priority number three: If you can't win all your nonconference games or look pretty damn good losing one of them, don't lose in conference. This is where the AAC, and the MW for that matter, can hurt themselves the most. That committee full of P5 reps is going to want to see a Go5 team that is head and shoulders above everyone else. For better or for worse, that status is going to be built off of dominating conference members. If you have a conference champion with two losses, is it really going to get them more consideration than, say, a Louisiana-Lafayette that has a real chance of flat out dominating the Sun Belt next year?
All the big win for UCF really bought the AAC for 2014 is the best opportunity to be the one chosen if you finish tied for best record with another Go5 representative. Even this opportunity can be lost if your champion finished poorly in 2013 and has an ugly loss in 2014.
