This article below from FanIQ predicts ECU to run through the AAC and picks us to beat VT but to lose to UNC & SC. This got me thinking about whether or not that would be enough to get us in the access bowl. With our schedule we would likely be in the top 15 with that record.

http://www.faniq.com/blog/East-Carolina-...Blog-76839

I know it has a lot to do with every team's respective strength of schedule and the AAC's overall OOC performance but would a 10-2 (8-0) record likely lock up the access bowl for an AAC team?

My biggest concern is that Marshall's schedule is so ridiculously weak that they may go undefeated. However, if they falter even once, they are out of the race IMO. I know that Boise & other MWC schools and maybe even the MAC may have something to say about it but I think that a 10-2 (8-0) AAC team would get the nod about 75% of the time. With ECU's 2014 strength of schedule our odds might be slightly better than that even.

Obviously depends on who those losses are to, when they happen, and who else is on your schedule. I'd say no unless they are both to top 10 caliber teams and said team beats another top 10 caliber team in the same season.

You could be up against an undefeated Marshall...they should be licking their chops looking at their schedule, even more than we did before 1998.

Would depend on the records of everyone else. I bet there will be some years that a 1 or 2 loss G5 team gets the access bowl, but impossible to know that at this moment. Lets say the season played out that way for ECU, with wins @VT, @Cincy, and UCF I'd guess we'd probably be sitting in the low 20's high 10's in the rankings. That might be good enough some years but there'd be plenty that wouldn't be.

I think if we are within one loss of either the sun belt, MAC and c-usa's best team we would get the nod. I think the MWC team will be little more apples to apples. I think if we are the same it may be a toss up and depend on who you beat that was good or maybe who you lost too and how badly. I honestly think in the 12 year window it will be owned by the American and MWC in 11 of the 12 years. I could be wrong but just my gut. I seriously don't think a Sun Belt team even sniffs it ever and considering the new make up of C-USA I have a hard time seeing them in it either. The MAC's top team performance the last two seasons in bowls hurts them as well short term.

I voted 50/50. I think any undefeated team from any g5 conference regardless of SOS will get ahead of a 2 loss team. I think an AAC school may pass a 1 loss schools outside of MWC. Like others are saying there are way too many factors at hand. Timing of losses, score in the losses, ranking of the opponents you lost to, are all factors that are involved. . . along with many others

As most have said, it depends on who you lose to. For instance, if UC sweeps the AAC and only loses to Ohio State (which, I think will make the palyoff), then at 11-1, an Access Bowl bid is possible. But I don't think you'll make it with 2 losses.

If Marshall is 13-0, they'd probably get nod over 10-2 AAC.

A one loss AAC team gets nod over just about anyone, except a one loss or undefeated Boise.

An undefeated AAC team always gets nod over everyone.

That's how I see it.

It would be tough. Over the past 10 seasons, here is how the the highest ranking team among the non-BCS and/or the Big east finished prior to bowl season (listed are non-BCS ranked teams and the highest ranked Big East team):


While two losses has done the trick before, in most years it would not cut it. And while that was using the BCS formula, I think the new playoff selection committee will come up with results very similar to the BCS.

Never. There will be a 0 or 1 loss Sunbelt, MAC, CUSA or MWC team

(05-27-2014 01:55 PM)EastCarolinaU. Wrote:  I voted 50/50.

The funny thing is this is the lowest answer. The choices are

1) 100% of the time
2) close to 100% of the time
3) More than 50% of the time
4) 50% of the time.

Talk about a guided question.

The committee is not going to pick the most "deserving" team. It intends to pick the "best" team. I know it doesn't sound right---but it makes sense. This is how they see it. A undefeated team has always been seen as the most "deserving" team. However, if the committee, after reviewing all the games and the statistics, believes a 2-loss champ from another conference would whip the undefeated team---then the 2-loss team gets the nod.

Lets say ECU goes 1-2 vs P5 competition and that all P5 opponents become bowl eligible at 9-3. Lets also say ECU's 2 P5 loses are both last second 1 point defeats and the one P5 victory is over a ranked P5 school. Lets say ECU is undefeated against the rest of their schedule winning every game by 2 touchdowns or more. Lets say Marshall is undefeated, but wins several games by a point and one or two of those games involve very 'lucky" plays that go their way. Maybe even some bad referee calls save them a victory. Lets say Marshall only wins one game by 2 touchdowns or more. Under these conditions, the selection committee may determine that the 10-2 ECU team is simply a much better team.

A lot depends on when the losses happen and your relative position in the rankings when they do. The problem with a team from say the Sun Belt, C-USA or MAC is where they start the ranking relative to teams in the American or MW. The obvious exception to this is NIU. As teams from the latter two conferences continue to win, it will become difficult to jump them for the Access spot. It's the same problem that hurts any G5 school. If you start way out of the rankings, sometimes it doesn't matter how well you play. You'll still be on the outside looking in. And one loss and you have no shot. Add to that the difficulty of going undefeated and it doesn't look real promising for a team like Marshall.

(05-27-2014 02:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:55 PM)EastCarolinaU. Wrote:  I voted 50/50.

The funny thing is this is the lowest answer. The choices are

1) 100% of the time
2) close to 100% of the time
3) More than 50% of the time
4) 50% of the time.

Talk about a guided question.

I think he meant less than 50% for #3.

I would say 20% of the time we can expect an undefeated from Mac/SB/CUSA etc. Of the remaining 80%, half the time 10-2 8-0 would beat the MWC team. So I would vote 40%.

(05-27-2014 02:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:55 PM)EastCarolinaU. Wrote:  I voted 50/50.

The funny thing is this is the lowest answer. The choices are

1) 100% of the time
2) close to 100% of the time
3) More than 50% of the time
4) 50% of the time.

Talk about a guided question.

Yeah, he messed up but I knew what he meant. Supposed to be <50%

In the opinion of the Committee, all G5 games will be the same, so simply the team with the best record will go. UCF would not have jumped an undefeated NIU this past year even though UCF's wins were much better than NIU's.

(05-27-2014 03:20 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  In the opinion of the Committee, all G5 games will be the same, so simply the team with the best record will go. UCF would not have jumped an undefeated NIU this past year even though UCF's wins were much better than NIU's.

This year will be the litmus test to see if that is the attitude the committee takes with the G5. I have a suspicion this is exactly how they are looking at it. Barry Alvarez, Tom Osborne, Oliver Luck, et al. likely don't think it is worth their time to put to much thought and effort into determining whether Team A or Team B from the G5 deserve the spot.

Time will tell..

Who knows as of today. Marshall basically gets to run a near FCS schedule in conference and out of conference. I would think that even losing 1 game should leave them out, but the computers liked niu and Fresno last year over a 1 loss ucf even though our 1 loss by 3 was to USCeast.

(05-27-2014 03:25 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 03:20 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  In the opinion of the Committee, all G5 games will be the same, so simply the team with the best record will go. UCF would not have jumped an undefeated NIU this past year even though UCF's wins were much better than NIU's.

This year will be the litmus test to see if that is the attitude the committee takes with the G5. I have a suspicion this is exactly how they are looking at it. Barry Alvarez, Tom Osborne, Oliver Luck, et al. likely don't think it is worth their time to put to much thought and effort into determining whether Team A or Team B from the G5 deserve the spot.

Time will tell..

Mike Trained Geese is supposedly our rep. Will he fight for AAC/Former Big East teams?