Some of you will recall a few months ago, there was some discussion here about how we might alter some things so that both MAC and CUSA could expect to compete perennially with the AAC and MWC for the lone big bowl slot. I proposed something called the Great 8, which essentially would be a Premier League composed of 4 CUSA and 4 MAC schools... CUSA being the MAC's virtual peer in terms of conference strength averaged over the last 5 years (i.e., projected using the teams as CUSA 3.0 is currently composed).

Here's a copy-and-paste from that discussion that illustrates:

---

So, I'm trying to look at this with as little subjectivity as a Marshall fan can bring to the topic... the Excel spreadsheet was constructed using what seemed to be rational criteria without attempting to prescribe any particular end-game...

And what we find is this:

75.9 = AAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
90.4 = MWC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
87.3 = Great 8 schools' (top 4 of MAC + top 4 of CUSA) average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012

15.5 = AAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
25.0 = MWC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
19.5 = Great 8 (top 4 of MAC + top 4 of CUSA) average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools

So, the numbers... not me... suggest that the G8 would be right there with AAC and MWC in any given year.

What's more, compare the G8 with what otherwise would be the case if status quo remains...

75.9 = AAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
90.4 = MWC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012
113.3 = MAC schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012 (25% below MWC)
118.7 = CUSA schools' average Sagarin ranking 2008-2012 (31% below MWC)

15.5 = AAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
25.0 = MWC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools
35.3 = MAC average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools (40% below MWC)
38.2 = CUSA average ranking in comparison to all other Go5 schools (52% below MWC)

So, status quo says that sometimes but probably not often, CUSA and MAC can expect to compete with AAC and MWC for the major bowl slot.

But set up a Great 8 paradigm, and the numbers support that it would be an annual expectation that either a CUSA or MAC school would be in the mix.

---

Well, while I personally still maintain the G8 would be the best option, I've come upon what would be one that would largely accomplish that central purpose, but without the complexity politically and in terms of expansion that would be required with the G8 idea. I just posted it over the last 24 hours to the Marshall forum that I frequent, and so far, it's gotten no actual objection... that is, beyond the standard "It'll never happen" reply that comes with pretty much anyone's attempt to offer a new idea to resolve any given issue... the cynics love to dictate what is within the realm of possibility, though they're interestingly slow to speak to whether they also foresaw something like a WVU-to-Big XII move... or even Boise's interest in the Big East... or after it occurring, Boise's interest in moving back to the MWC... to the contrary, when significant money is at stake, administrators are always looking for solutions to get the upper-hand... or in this case, to get on a equal plane with the two conferences that look to have an advantage.

Let me start by laying some groundwork with a couple of screenshots from the NCAA Manual...

---

---

Notably, 18.7.1(b) provides for the opportunity to schedule games after a season has begun, as long as those games occur in regularly-used home fields.

Notably, 17.9.5.2( c) indicates the parameters for conference championship games (CCGs), and for the purposes of this concept, what's important is that there is no language that indicates at what point the CCG must be played, or whether any games can occur after it.

So, given those rules governing what can be done, here's that simpler alternative.

First, this much would remain the same...

- 4 non-conference games
- 6 conference games, intra-division (i.e., round-robin vs. division opponents)

But then, the workaround... one that would still allow us to render a team from either the MAC or CUSA 3.0 that has 3 end-of-season quality wins under its belt, and ostensibly, would vault one of our champions to, at least, the same level of consideration that will routinely be accorded to the AAC and MWC champions... is this...

Last Saturday of November
- In both CUSA and MAC, 1 conference game vs. cross-division opponent accordingly:

• Conference Championship Play-In Game: West #2 at East #1
• Conference Championship Play-In Game: East #2 at West #1
• East #3 vs. West #3, at East in even years, West in odd years
• East #4 vs. West #4, at East in even years, West in odd years
• East #5 vs. West #5, at East in even years, West in odd years
• East #6 vs. West #6, at East in even years, West in odd years
• East #7 vs. West #7, at East in even years, West in odd years
  

First Saturday of December
- MAC Championship Game, pitting the winners of the play-in games, and played at the home field of the team considered to be a stronger candidate for a big bowl per a list of pre-established and crystal-clear criteria

- CUSA Championship Game

Second Saturday of December
- MAC/CUSA Challenge (technically, the 12th regular season game of the season for these teams)

• MAC Championship Game winner versus CUSA Championship Game winner
• MAC Championship Game loser versus CUSA Championship Game loser
• MAC Play-In loser 1 vs. CUSA Play-In loser 1
• MAC Play-In loser 2 vs. CUSA Play-In loser 2
• MAC East #3 vs. CUSA East #3
• MAC West #3 vs. CUSA West #3
• MAC East #4 vs. CUSA East #4
• MAC West #4 vs. CUSA West #4
• MAC East #5 vs. CUSA East #5
• MAC West #5 vs. CUSA West #5
• MAC East #6 vs. CUSA East #6
• MAC West #6 vs. CUSA West #6
• MAC East #7 vs. CUSA East #7
• MAC West #7 vs. CUSA West #7
  

Couple of side notes...

The game pitting the championship game winners would be played, again, at the home field of the team considered to be a stronger candidate for a big bowl per a list of pre-established and crystal-clear criteria. For all other games, those would be at CUSA sites in even years, and MAC sites in odd years.

And yes, it's true that the MAC doesn't currently have a 14th member, so that MAC West #7 isn't a possible opponent to the CUSA West #7... and it would definitely be best if that addition were to occur. But if not, a viable alternative would be for CUSA to annually schedule a SWAC school (which doesn't play in the FCS playoffs) into that slot.

Again, an important premise of the whole discussion is that when you find yourself in the same fox hole, you'd best think about how you can work together... such is the situation that MAC and CUSA finds themselves in.

All that we're doing here with the new alternative proposed in this thread, in essence, is to decide to reformat our conference scheduling and conference championship game, and coordinate that with the MAC. So, (a) there are conference championship play-in games for #1 East vs. #2 West and then #1 West vs. #2 East... then (b) the conference championship game occurs a week earlier than we're used to... and then, © during that final weekend of the season, we hold a "challenge" Saturday, with the headline bout being between the CUSA champion and MAC champion.

So, to summarize the most important point of this...

We end up with one of the top teams in either CUSA or MAC ending the season with 3 consecutive wins over quality opponents... and consequently... practically every year... either a CUSA or MAC team is going to contend for the big bowl slot and the money and prestige that goes with that.

Call 911... someone's evidently holding a gun to Bull's head (again), forcing him to click on and respond in threads he doesn't want to...

So you only want positive responses?

Why are you bringing this here? Spend your time better and arrange a meeting with each AD. Then take it to the media. Then get back to us. You do know that fans are not making these decisions? I"d be curious to hear what the AD's would say, although I could guess. Or is this just pointless message board jerking off?

1. The attack responses, yes, make me roll my eyes... my perspective is that I don't bother clicking on a thread, if I'm not actually interested in the content... but I get it... some people for some reason feel like they're the thought police, and a post needs to be worthy of their approval... otherwise, it gets dissed for even being posted.... to which my response is a big yawn.

2. As fans, our job is to advocate. That's all we can do. We have no direct control over wins and losses... we aren't players, and we aren't coaches. But we can advocate for ideas that put our teams in increasingly better position to enjoy maximum success and national regard... and then, the revenue that goes along with those things via bowl payouts and TV contracts and increased ticket and merchandise sales. And putting thought into those kinds of things and advocating them costs us very little except some time and conviction. This is a positive way we can discuss some options, which after they have had some incubation time here and get some troubleshooting and stronger development, we can take and advocate... and, yeah, make an appeal to leadership to do something that significantly changes the... pun intended... playing field... denying the tilt for AAC and MWC as things are currently positioned.

I think the whole premise is flawed. Any team in any of the ghettoized conferences can get that access by getting at least one if not two quality OOC wins early, and running the table otherwise. Setting up one more game that that team might lose vs. a team without the same resume seems foolish. This system does exactly what the other conferences want: having us beat ourselves. I think an elimination game is a very bad idea. Even the conference championship game has that effect. It has cost the MAC twice in recent years. Adding one more game to the gauntlet is foolhardy.

And one other thing--that was your "simpler proposal"? I really don't want to read the complicated version.

The 2012 MAC Championship stands in opposition to your theory... NIU and Kent both would have been beat-out by Boise had it not been for a game that pitted the two against each other. In fact, it is the fact that that game springboarded NIU into the Orange Bowl that is a foundational support for this model.

And, look, here's the macro problem with that perspective... there is no system that's going to make an undeserving team into a deserving one. Translated, if you're 2011 Houston, and you go into the CUSA Championship highly ranked, but get beat by Southern Miss, the bottom line is the bottom line... you didn't deserve to go to a BCS bowl.

This isn't designed to put lipstick on a pig, but rather, it's meant to put the most legit team into contention with the AAC and/or MWC candidates for the lone big bowl slot. If that team is truly deserving, they'll fly through their conference and will win that MAC/CUSA Challenge game... if it isn't, it won't.

As for scheduling OOC... it's agreed that every team ought to be scheduling as wisely as possible... but then, it's not in every team's control as to which other teams are willing opponents... sometimes the best non-contract conference teams are the ones that the contract conference teams want to avoid.

Agreed?

(02-10-2014 02:16 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  1. The attack responses, yes, make me roll my eyes... my perspective is that I don't bother clicking on a thread, if I'm not actually interested in the content... but I get it... some people for some reason feel like they're the thought police, and a post needs to be worthy of their approval... otherwise, it gets dissed for even being posted.... to which my response is a big yawn.

Sorry I saw "New, simpler proposal > re: Gaining equal footing with AAC and MWC for big bowl slot " And assumed there was some realistic simple proposal....

Instead its regurgitating the same cluster F that you had last time..

Perhaps if you want people to stay out you should correctly title threads...

Maybe:

Same old stupid idea that cant gain political traction but with more research

Too many characters?

So you want MAC and CUSA teams to be "deserving," whatever the hell that means, but your suggestion doesn't demand that every other conference's top team is equally "deserving." Because a team loses a game does not mean it is not a high quality team. If they don't play that +1 game and subsequently get the bid, doesn't that by definition mean they are deserving? If the MAC did not have a championship game, NIU would have probably gotten the BCS bid this year. It's really easy to say after the fact that they didn't deserve it because BG beat them, but you wouldn't have said that prior to the game, would you? That is the point. The only object is to get in the bigger bowl game however you do it. The bowl games themselves are just meaningless exhibitions, even more meaningless now that there is a playoff from which we are excluded.

The only way your idea makes a modicum of sense is if both the CUSA and MAC team in the #1 game are both equally vying for a semi-major bowl. How often does that occur vs. how often does one team have have a clearly better resume? Plus the other games are way, way too complicated to arrange and are truly pointless games that no one will want to either play or see. It's the reason they got rid of consolation games in the NCAA hoops tourney. Nothing good could happen in a ginned up extra game vs. an opponent you can't even name until a week or so in advance.

And since when has college football been about "deserving"?

The real way CUSA and the MAC can gain better footing with the MWC and the AAC is to become equal in budgets, facilities, and performance. There really isn't a viable shortcut or gimmick in scheduling that can beat the most straightforward way: match them on the field and in the support the programs are given from within.

(02-10-2014 03:36 PM)axeme Wrote:  The real way CUSA and the MAC can gain better footing with the MWC and the AAC is to become equal in budgets, facilities, and performance. There really isn't a viable shortcut or gimmick in scheduling that can beat the most straightforward way: match them on the field and in the support the programs are given from within.

(02-10-2014 03:36 PM)axeme Wrote:  So you want MAC and CUSA teams to be "deserving," whatever the hell that means, but your suggestion doesn't demand that every other conference's top team is equally "deserving." Because a team loses a game does not mean it is not a high quality team.

The level of presumption and volatility never ceases to amaze me. You'd think I'd threatened someone's firstborn.

Honestly... not trying to insult you here... it's not clear from your response that you get the problem, so... naturally... it seems that you have no regard for the solution... i.e., if there's no discernible problem, then... naturally... the solution is nonsensical... kinda like if someone doesn't perceive there's a problem with the national debt, s/he is kinda out of the loop when someone starts a discussion about sequestration.

The problem that you're most likely just reading over top of (though, it's outlined in the initial post, I promise) is that the MAC and CUSA both have a problem staring them in the face... i.e., the statistical likelihood that the AAC and MWC are going to annually have a team that gets the glory and money of that one big bowl slot, and that MAC and CUSA are only rarely-to-sometimes going to be able to do so.

So, one or both might have otherwise "deserving" candidates, but because of some numbers that don't stack up as well for us as it does them, our champions will routinely finish runner-up, or 3rd or 4th to others.

(02-10-2014 03:36 PM)axeme Wrote:  If the MAC did not have a championship game, NIU would have probably gotten the BCS bid this year. It's really easy to say after the fact that they didn't deserve it because BG beat them, but you wouldn't have said that prior to the game, would you?

It's not only easy, it's true.

It's a game of wins and losses, not a game of what-ifs.

That's whether you're 2013 NIU, or 2011 Houston, or in the NFL, you're the 2011 New England Patriots playing the Giants in the Super Bowl... another game where it doesn't matter what we would've said prior to the game... the result was the result, and the team that got the trophy was... yes... "deserving," and the other team... yes... was "undeserving."

Not saying anything you don't already know, though it sounds like it's a little painful for you to admit. Newsflash... that's been a little painful for all of us to admit at times when our team underperformed at a critical moment. NIU knew what they had to do. They didn't get it done.

(02-10-2014 03:36 PM)axeme Wrote:  The only way your idea makes a modicum of sense is if both the CUSA and MAC team in the #1 game are both equally vying for a semi-major bowl.

Another sentence that hints to me that you're not aware of the problem. CUSA and MAC in the new CFP environment will annually be competing with AAC, MWC and Sun Belt to place their champion in the one major bowl slot that's been allotted to a non-contract conference team.

There is a CFP committee who will make that determination, based on a ranking that that committee produces, based in turn on individual rankings that each committee member produces, based in turn on whatever numbers that any given member decides to give greatest priority.

Once you understand that, and once you ascertain the historical numbers and how similar CUSA and MAC are, you'll understand why I'm asserting that there is wisdom in working together when you're both in the same foxhole trying to overcome the same opponents (AAC and MWC) that stand between you and success.

(02-10-2014 03:22 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 02:16 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  1. The attack responses, yes, make me roll my eyes... my perspective is that I don't bother clicking on a thread, if I'm not actually interested in the content... but I get it... some people for some reason feel like they're the thought police, and a post needs to be worthy of their approval... otherwise, it gets dissed for even being posted.... to which my response is a big yawn.

Sorry I sa

Too many characters. Yes.

*yawn*

(02-10-2014 05:21 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(02-10-2014 03:36 PM)axeme Wrote:  So you want MAC and CUSA teams to be "deserving," whatever the hell that means, but your suggestion doesn't demand that every other conference's top team is equally "deserving." Because a team loses a game does not mean it is not a high quality team.

The level of presumption and volatility never ceases to amaze me. You'd think I'd threatened someone's firstborn.

Honestly... not trying to insult you here... it's not clear from your response that you get the problem, so... naturally... it seems that you have no regard for the solution... i.e., if there's no discernible problem, then... naturally... the solution is nonsensical... kinda like if someone doesn't perceive there's a problem with the national debt, s/he is kinda out of the loop when someone starts a discussion about sequestration.

The problem that you're most likely just reading over top of (though, it's outlined in the initial post, I promise) is that the MAC and CUSA both have a problem staring them in the face... i.e., the statistical likelihood that the AAC and MWC are going to annually have a team that gets the glory and money of that one big bowl slot, and that MAC and CUSA are only rarely-to-sometimes going to be able to do so.

So, one or both might have otherwise "deserving" candidates, but because of some numbers that don't stack up as well for us as it does them, our champions will routinely finish runner-up, or 3rd or 4th to others.

(02-10-2014 03:36 PM)axeme Wrote:  If the MAC did not have a championship game, NIU would have probably gotten the BCS bid this year. It's really easy to say after the fact that they didn't deserve it because BG beat them, but you wouldn't have said that prior to the game, would you?

It's not only easy, it's true.

It's a game of wins and losses, not a game of what-ifs.

That's whether you're 2013 NIU, or 2011 Houston, or in the NFL, you're the 2011 New England Patriots playing the Giants in the Super Bowl... another game where it doesn't matter what we would've said prior to the game... the result was the result, and the team that got the trophy was... yes... "deserving," and the other team... yes... was "undeserving."

Not saying anything you don't already know, though it sounds like it's a little painful for you to admit. Newsflash... that's been a little painful for all of us to admit at times when our team underperformed at a critical moment. NIU knew what they had to do. They didn't get it done.

(02-10-2014 03:36 PM)axeme Wrote:  The only way your idea makes a modicum of sense is if both the CUSA and MAC team in the #1 game are both equally vying for a semi-major bowl.

Another sentence that hints to me that you're not aware of the problem. CUSA and MAC in the new CFP environment will annually be competing with AAC, MWC and Sun Belt to place their champion in the one major bowl slot that's been allotted to a non-contract conference team.

There is a CFP committee who will make that determination, based on a ranking that that committee produces, based in turn on individual rankings that each committee member produces, based in turn on whatever numbers that any given member decides to give greatest priority.

Once you understand that, and once you ascertain the historical numbers and how similar CUSA and MAC are, you'll understand why I'm asserting that there is wisdom in working together when you're both in the same foxhole trying to overcome the same opponents (AAC and MWC) that stand between you and success.

I do understand the situation. I just disagree with your interpretation of it. There is a difference between reality and what you or me or anyone thinks it may mean. You have devised a stunningly complicated gimmick while giving no credence to the most obvious and direct path: work on getting your school the resources it needs to compete with those who currently have more. You seem to think the MAC and CUSA can continue business as usual on the support front and scheme its way to equality with conferences whose schools have better institutional, fan, and alum support. Good luck with that.

One thing for sure, you need a much, much simpler plan. The one you have is just silly. Witness how few people (any?) think it's at all feasible. If you can't get support from a bunch of people who don't even have to try and figure out how it could be implemented in reality, how realistic do you think it is? Think Occam's Razor.

(02-10-2014 06:52 PM)axeme Wrote:  I do understand the situation. I just disagree with your interpretation of it. There is a difference between reality and what you or me or anyone thinks it may mean. You have devised a stunningly complicated gimmick while giving no credence to the most obvious and direct path: work on getting your school the resources it needs to compete with those who currently have more. You seem to think the MAC and CUSA can continue business as usual on the support front and scheme its way to equality with conferences whose schools have better institutional, fan, and alum support. Good luck with that.

False premise.

If "getting your school the resources it needs" was the magic bullet, you'd see a clear correlation between athletic budgets and W/L pct.

Why don't we?

Because the talent pool is the talent pool, and because 18 year-olds are still developing (2-star HS talent can become NFL draftees, while 5-star talent can become duds), and because some coaches are better than other coaches without regard to what they're being paid... and a few other reasons that I won't bother to add.

Meanwhile, you also propose another false premise which is to suggest that equality with other conferences is the target. Close, but not exactly.

The target, rather, is to put our champions in the same conversation with the other conferences' champions for the big bowl slot in spite of having a slightly lesser schedule, conventionally-speaking.

Let me be clear... I don't imagine top-to-bottom that the AAC and MAC are going to become equals.

I do imagine... and there are plenty of teams and games that history would show supports the assertion... that practically every stinkin year you're going to find that the stronger of the two conferences champions (ie, MAC and CUSA) is going to be pretty much as strong if not stronger than the AAC or the MWC champ.

(02-10-2014 06:52 PM)axeme Wrote:  One thing for sure, you need a much, much simpler plan. The one you have is just silly. Witness how few people (any?) think it's at all feasible. If you can't get support from a bunch of people who don't even have to try and figure out how it could be implemented in reality, how realistic do you think it is? Think Occam's Razor.

Really.

Let me offer another perspective.

I don't mean to offend any one person, but surely if you've spent any time on any sports board, you know that you can't really have any sense for how intelligent a group gathered on any one forum is...

And/but... to the degree that most of them respond in a thoughtful, intelligent way... dare I say even polite... that gives one the inclination that you're dealing with a more civilized, dare I say even college-educated crowd... i.e., when they don't start convulsing after one paragraph that it's too much to read, or when they make points that clearly demonstrate that they get the concept, even if they disagree or find something to troubleshoot.

To the degree that, instead, one gets PeeWee Herman like insults from, say, a forum stalker, and other comments that do not even appear to reflect an understanding of the nature of the problem being addressed... well... that doesn't exactly inspire any particular reason for respect for those opinions.

In reality, we're talking about some simple adjustments in scheduling that would allow for a substantive bounce in the favor of a MAC or CUSA champion every year. This isn't even as hard to understand as directions for a piece of IKEA furniture. It's just not. Some people get a little ego boost out of being critical. I get it, but why would I take that kind of person's input quite so seriously. It's just noise.

(02-10-2014 07:27 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  And/but... to the degree that most of them respond in a thoughtful, intelligent way... dare I say even polite... that gives one the inclination that you're dealing with a more civilized, dare I say even college-educated crowd... i.e., when they don't start convulsing after one paragraph that it's too much to read, or when they make points that clearly demonstrate that they get the concept, even if they disagree or find something to troubleshoot.

If you confuse "being polite" with "being educated" it's no wonder that you came up with such an unworkable of the wall plan. And if the rather tame criticism you get here is enough to wad up your knickers I think you have not spent a whole lot of time working with a diverse group of people.

Clear, Concise, and Honest beats false modesty and pats on the back any day of the week.

The problem is budgets, that's it... If you have more money you have better facilities and better coaches to develop those 18 year olds.

Want to compete with the AAC and MWC top to bottom? match their budgets top to bottom.

Living in some silly world where schools don't control their OOC or that conferences rebrand the top of the order "the elite 8" is not nearly as productive as donating money to your depts...

(02-10-2014 08:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Want to compete with the AAC and MWC top to bottom? match their budgets top to bottom.

Um. Yeah. Reading comprehension scores off the charts.

Keep telling yourself that the problem is that everyone else is just too dumb to understand your brilliance. That will save you the trouble of thinking of a solution to the real problems our schools face, with the bonus that you get to feel superior all by yourself.

I guess that means you're done here. Nice job. Good luck at your next board.

I do have some little appreciation for your elaborate sophistry, but it's very little.

(02-10-2014 09:08 PM)axeme Wrote:  Keep telling yourself that the problem is that everyone else is just too dumb to understand your brilliance.

Not sure you get the concept... I mean the concept of debate... when one person answers your point with evidence to the contrary, you're supposed to offer an actual counterpoint... you're not fooling anyone with this ancillary schtick that amounts to nothing more than "Damn it, I'm right and you're wrong."

You seem to not understand the concept that you have not presented an idea worth my debating it and a terrible case of confusing your opinions with facts. When someone has that affliction, I find it almost impossible to "debate."

But carry on. I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about the subject, if nothing else. I see far more clear and pressing issues, at least for MAC schools.

(02-10-2014 09:55 PM)axeme Wrote:  You seem to not understand the concept that you have not presented an idea worth my debating it and a terrible case of confusing your opinions with facts. When someone has that affliction, I find it almost impossible to "debate."

But carry on. I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about the subject, if nothing else. I see far more clear and pressing issues, at least for MAC schools.

I bring numbers to support my assertions. If you'd like to argue those numbers, I'm happy to oblige. Until you do, or until you offer your own, then you really aren't participating in the debate so much as you're just another noise.

And if you honestly think that MAC schools do not consider their ability to place their teams regularly in a big bowl slot to be a clear and pressing issue, all I can say is you probably aren't from NIU where they know very well what's at stake, both monetarily and in terms of national prestige.

No mistaking it... CUSA and MAC share the same grave concern... the AAC and MWC must not be permitted to walk all over us. The talent base is such that we're just as able to field good teams as they are, but because our overall conferences are slightly weaker, our schedule strengths will necessarily be slightly weaker, at least for the foreseeable future. This workaround... an alternative to the original Great 8, which essentially was the Premier League applied to our two NCAA conferences... is easily done... just a matter of making the decision to cooperate and make it happen.