http://sportsunbiased.com/ncaa/college-f...-new-era/#

Comparing the win percentage and strength of schedule of the G5 conferences is interesting and it provides the expected results, but the author's method of calculating "strength quotient" is confusing.

Quote:The equation itself is a calculation of average wins divided by winning percentage. This number is then multiplied by the league winning percentage over that time span. From this, each computation is multiplied by 1000 to give a more manageable number, and to this final figure is added the number of 10+ win seasons by each conference’s teams from 2011 to 2013.

huh??? I tried repeating his calculation and couldn't figure out how he got the strength quotients for each league. Plus, adding the number of 10 win seasons to whatever number his algorithm spits out seems pretty arbitrary. Why not 9 win seasons or 11 win seasons?

(01-22-2014 09:22 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Comparing the win percentage and strength of schedule of the G5 conferences is interesting and it provides the expected results, but the author's method of calculating "strength quotient" is confusing.

Quote:The equation itself is a calculation of average wins divided by winning percentage. This number is then multiplied by the league winning percentage over that time span. From this, each computation is multiplied by 1000 to give a more manageable number, and to this final figure is added the number of 10+ win seasons by each conference’s teams from 2011 to 2013.

huh??? I tried repeating his calculation and couldn't figure out how he got the strength quotients for each league. Plus, adding the number of 10 win seasons to whatever number his algorithm spits out seems pretty arbitrary. Why not 9 win seasons or 11 win seasons?

Agreed. While I'm no math whiz I'm not that bad either and some of his methodolgy seemed arbirtary. I've not ever looked, but I wonder how his calcs would stand up against the BCS methods.

I think The American may have the same problem C-USA 2.0 had. All the teams beat up on each other in conference allowing a team from a weaker league (example: Boise State, the WAC years) to grab the Access Bowl. 2011 was the only year C-USA 2.0 legititmately had a chance to send a team to a BCS game; but Southern Miss said "Not so fast my friend." Every other year we just beat each other up.

(01-22-2014 10:32 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I think The American may have the same problem C-USA 2.0 had. All the teams beat up on each other in conference allowing a team from a weaker league (example: Boise State, the WAC years) to grab the Access Bowl. 2011 was the only year C-USA 2.0 legititmately had a chance to send a team to a BCS game; but Southern Miss said "Not so fast my friend." Every other year we just beat each other up.

Uh, UCF?

They would have made an access bowl without the auto-bid.

(01-22-2014 11:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:32 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I think The American may have the same problem C-USA 2.0 had. All the teams beat up on each other in conference allowing a team from a weaker league (example: Boise State, the WAC years) to grab the Access Bowl. 2011 was the only year C-USA 2.0 legititmately had a chance to send a team to a BCS game; but Southern Miss said "Not so fast my friend." Every other year we just beat each other up.

Uh, UCF?

They would have made an access bowl without the auto-bid.

Yes, they would have. Obviously the American will send a team some years. I just don't think it's a forgone conclusion it will happen every year due to the league being pretty competitive.

(01-22-2014 11:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:32 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I think The American may have the same problem C-USA 2.0 had. All the teams beat up on each other in conference allowing a team from a weaker league (example: Boise State, the WAC years) to grab the Access Bowl. 2011 was the only year C-USA 2.0 legititmately had a chance to send a team to a BCS game; but Southern Miss said "Not so fast my friend." Every other year we just beat each other up.

Uh, UCF?

They would have made an access bowl without the auto-bid.

I would say this year is an anomaly simply because there likley won't be another season when the American (or any conference) conference will have 2 QBs on the conferences 2 best teams that will be potential top 15 picks in the NFL draft.

Why is the MAC so high? They were terrible in the bowl games...shows that the MAC is completely insular.

This confirms what I think most already knew.

The AAC is a step up, the MWC & MAC are close behind, CUSA is rebuilding & the Sun Belt is still the bottom of the heap.

(01-22-2014 09:22 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  Comparing the win percentage and strength of schedule of the G5 conferences is interesting and it provides the expected results, but the author's method of calculating "strength quotient" is confusing.

Quote:The equation itself is a calculation of average wins divided by winning percentage. This number is then multiplied by the league winning percentage over that time span. From this, each computation is multiplied by 1000 to give a more manageable number, and to this final figure is added the number of 10+ win seasons by each conference’s teams from 2011 to 2013.

huh??? I tried repeating his calculation and couldn't figure out how he got the strength quotients for each league. Plus, adding the number of 10 win seasons to whatever number his algorithm spits out seems pretty arbitrary. Why not 9 win seasons or 11 win seasons?

Try contacting him. He was quick to respond to me on another matter. As for the 10 win mark, is that not a universally recognized accomplishment? I only ask b/c I recall seeing a graphic of 10 win programs on a BCS pregame show this past year.

TheNorthTexan Wrote:Why is the MAC so high? They were terrible in the bowl games...shows that the MAC is completely insular.

Don't think this year's bowl results were included...check the date of the article. I ran across it while traveling over the holidays and forgot about it until the other day when I posted a link on the AAC board.

(01-22-2014 11:48 AM)TheNorthTexan Wrote:  Why is the MAC so high? They were terrible in the bowl games...shows that the MAC is completely insular.

Dunno. On the Belt board they're claiming the following:

SBC Officially Ranked Top Non AQ league for 2013

We were going to finish 2nd, but The Cajuns and ASU's victory in the bowl games put us over the top. League pockets an additional 1.4 million in revenue sharing as a prize to be split amongst 2013 membership.

Sans American, of course, which was AQ for the 2013 season. Someone commented that the MAC's 0-4 bowl record is what cost them, but I find it hard to believe they'd have beaten out the MW.

The American is in the best position to be the leader of the G5 pack and changes to the D1 rules could shake it up some more with more powers coming together... the American has four slots presently available if tv execs say more money is available.

The American just needs to hold to old Big East standards... if a member can't maintain competitive abilities in sports or pull attendance numbers - the conference has no room for dead weight in its battle to remain relevant and must vote to boot them (as it did with Temple during their first stint in the conference). The conference needs to light a fire under Tulsa and SMU -- plus watch Houston and Tulane who should benefit from new venues.

(01-22-2014 11:48 AM)TheNorthTexan Wrote:  Why is the MAC so high? They were terrible in the bowl games...shows that the MAC is completely insular.

the MAC isn't insular. They faired just as well, if not better, than CUSA in non conference games. Ohio was just an average MAC team (7-6) but was 2-1 vs 3 of the top 4 teams in CUSA. Can't judge a whole season by just the bowl games. too many variables at play- coaching changes, motivation, etc.

(01-22-2014 01:06 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The American is in the best position to be the leader of the G5 pack and changes to the D1 rules could shake it up some more with more powers coming together... the American has four slots presently available if tv execs say more money is available.

The American just needs to hold to old Big East standards... if a member can't maintain competitive abilities in sports or pull attendance numbers - the conference has no room for dead weight in its battle to remain relevant and must vote to boot them (as it did with Temple during their first stint in the conference). The conference needs to light a fire under Tulsa and SMU -- plus watch Houston and Tulane who should benefit from new venues.

ah, the media conglomerate of the east ruling the empire.....year in, year out...over time it's going to be a wash

the psyche of king of the sh!t pile mountain is beyond my ability to comprehend...ineffectually known as the 'sj effect'

(01-22-2014 12:36 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Dunno. On the Belt board they're claiming the following:

SBC Officially Ranked Top Non AQ league for 2013

We were going to finish 2nd, but The Cajuns and ASU's victory in the bowl games put us over the top. League pockets an additional 1.4 million in revenue sharing as a prize to be split amongst 2013 membership.

Sans American, of course, which was AQ for the 2013 season. Someone commented that the MAC's 0-4 bowl record is what cost them, but I find it hard to believe they'd have beaten out the MW.

Yes, beating Tulane and Ball State makes the Sun Belt the top non-AQ league.

(01-22-2014 01:21 PM)wh49er Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:36 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Dunno. On the Belt board they're claiming the following:

SBC Officially Ranked Top Non AQ league for 2013

We were going to finish 2nd, but The Cajuns and ASU's victory in the bowl games put us over the top. League pockets an additional 1.4 million in revenue sharing as a prize to be split amongst 2013 membership.

Sans American, of course, which was AQ for the 2013 season. Someone commented that the MAC's 0-4 bowl record is what cost them, but I find it hard to believe they'd have beaten out the MW.

Yes, beating Tulane and Ball State makes the Sun Belt the top non-AQ league.

Except, that's not what was said.

I understand it's presumptuous to talk like this, given ODU has not beaten any C-USA teams and in fact only has one FBS win, but I believe we are positioned to take advantage of the model Boise ST, ECU and others have used to "play above" the conference.
"But it is also instructive to remember that it only takes one powerhouse to dominate the rest of its competition to open the eyeballs of the nation, and in any given year there is now an outlet for any mid-major" —

(01-22-2014 01:36 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:21 PM)wh49er Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:36 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Dunno. On the Belt board they're claiming the following:

SBC Officially Ranked Top Non AQ league for 2013

We were going to finish 2nd, but The Cajuns and ASU's victory in the bowl games put us over the top. League pockets an additional 1.4 million in revenue sharing as a prize to be split amongst 2013 membership.

Sans American, of course, which was AQ for the 2013 season. Someone commented that the MAC's 0-4 bowl record is what cost them, but I find it hard to believe they'd have beaten out the MW.

Yes, beating Tulane and Ball State makes the Sun Belt the top non-AQ league.

Except, that's not what was said.

I know it was someone from the Sun Belt board with no link but troll on ULL fan.

(01-22-2014 01:43 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I understand it's presumptuous to talk like this, given ODU has not beaten any C-USA teams and in fact only has one FBS win, but I believe we are positioned to take advantage of the model Boise ST, ECU and others have used to "play above" the conference.
"But it is also instructive to remember that it only takes one powerhouse to dominate the rest of its competition to open the eyeballs of the nation, and in any given year there is now an outlet for any mid-major" —

Not saying you can't "play above" the conference, but what makes you think this.

Also Boise and ECU had different scheduling philosophies.

(01-22-2014 01:43 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I understand it's presumptuous to talk like this, given ODU has not beaten any C-USA teams and in fact only has one FBS win, but I believe we are positioned to take advantage of the model Boise ST, ECU and others have used to "play above" the conference.
"But it is also instructive to remember that it only takes one powerhouse to dominate the rest of its competition to open the eyeballs of the nation, and in any given year there is now an outlet for any mid-major" —

yep...and you are positioned geographically...still doesn't matter

...but keep that half full thinking on tilt...should serve well

did you guys just hire mark cuban as a consultant?