2 Top 25 teams and 4 top 40. Mountain Division by far and away toughest G5 and compares favorably with Pac12 N, ACC and Bigten

Compares competitively well with Pac12 N, ACC Coastal, and BigTen West -- yes, I agree.

The thing about most G5 conferences or division comparison to the P5 -- how bad are the bad in each, too? That's usually where & why P5s will get the nod as at least a bit better.

Bottom 2 Mountain Teams (New Mexico & Wyoming) vs Bottom 2 of these:

B10-W: Illinois & Purdue (are better)
P12-N: Wash State & Oregon State (are better)
ACC-C: Pitt & Va-Tech (are better)

Top 3 Mountain Teams (Boise, Colorado St, Utah State) vs Top 3 of these:

B10-W: #14 Wisconsin, #22 Minnesota, Nebraska (are better)
P12-N: #3 Oregon, Stanford, Washington (equalizes out to be same with Ore; Mountain has 2 out of 3 better tho)
ACC-C: #16 GA-Tech, North Carolina, Duke (are worse)

But where they're better or worse isn't by some big margin, though -- I think that's what matters.

(11-24-2014 01:55 AM)BLEEDBLUE81 Wrote:  2 Top 25 teams and 4 top 40. Mountain Division by far and away toughest G5 and compares favorably with Pac12 N, ACC and Bigten

Umm, yeah if you pick the worst teams and put them against the best teams. But a conference is a conference.

Boise State and CSU are good this year but neither of them are on the level of those BCS buster squads of the past.

Aside from those two the rest of the MWC is pretty average to terrible. Your basing things on win loss record and not who these teams actually played this season.

If you want to be technical the best team CSU beat all year was Boston College by three and I would hardly thump my chest about that.

There are a few MWC teams doing great but let's be honest here. There are about six Pac-12 teams that could run through the MWC this year. And I'm not so sure Boise or CSU are even better than Stanford who is 6-5.

I'm sorry, but the G5 is weak this year. You can take the top 3 from any G5 league and put them in any of the P5 leagues and you have a 6 or 7 win season.
No one in the G5 would end the year ranked if they played in a P5 league. Most wouldn't even be bowl eligible.

The division between the "P5" and the rest is startling. The "G5" need to have that "access bowl" slot revoked. Not a single G5 team belongs anywhere near that game.

That being said...yeah, the MW is head-and-shoulders above the rest of the G5 conferences.

(11-24-2014 09:10 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The division between the "P5" and the rest is startling. The "G5" need to have that "access bowl" slot revoked. Not a single G5 team belongs anywhere near that game.

That being said...yeah, the MW is head-and-shoulders above the rest of the G5 conferences.

It's definitely a bad year for the G5. That said, the MW seems to be the best of the group.

Gotta love this board. It must be a "weak year" for the G5 if another conference is better than your beloved AAC. It can't just be that the AAC was overhyped... no, anything but that!

(11-24-2014 10:19 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Gotta love this board. It must be a "weak year" for the G5 if another conference is better than your beloved AAC. It can't just be that the AAC was overhyped... no, anything but that!

The AAC wasn't overhyped by anyone but AAC fans, of which there are a lot on this forum. The rest of the world thought the MWC and AAC were the co-best of the G5, not that this meant all that much.

Yes, the MWC was been the best this year. But that and a nickel will buy you ... not a whole lot.

(11-24-2014 10:19 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Gotta love this board. It must be a "weak year" for the G5 if another conference is better than your beloved AAC. It can't just be that the AAC was overhyped... no, anything but that!

All that I know is that the AAC had a ranked team in the CFP at 6-1; and that team was ranked in the teens in the AP and by the coaches earlier this year. The MWC have teams at 10-1 and 9-2 and neither one of those teams are ranked in the CFP and neither school can break 20th in the AP or coaches poll. So who are the people in the know saying is the best conference?

Let's not get too crazy here and say the MWC is better than the ACC:

ACC record vs P5: 6-7
MWC record vs P5: 4-17
American record vs P5: 3-18

ACC record vs G5: 18-7
MWC record vs G5: 13-7
American record vs G5: 13-10

ACC is 14-0 vs FCS, MWC is 10-0 vs FCS, American is 8-0 vs FCS.

Clearly, there is a bigger gap between the ACC and MWC than between the MWC and American.

No argument from me...the data says that the MWC is #1, CUSA #2, American #3, MAC #4 and Sunbelt in at #5 for this year.

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

(11-24-2014 10:19 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Gotta love this board. It must be a "weak year" for the G5 if another conference is better than your beloved AAC. It can't just be that the AAC was overhyped... no, anything but that!

The only thing overhyped is your reading comprehension. Never said a thing about "overhyped". I said this is a down year of the G5. There is NO team in the G5 that would even qualify for a BCS bowl under the old rules. This would have been a no BCS buster year. Lucky the new rules are in place. I personally think the best G5 teams are in the MW this year (Colorado St, Boise, and Utah St). The AAC sucks this year--theres some talented squads--but the teams are too inconsistent.

(11-24-2014 12:44 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  No argument from me...the data says that the MWC is #1, CUSA #2, American #3, MAC #4 and Sunbelt in at #5 for this year.

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

C-USA #3? They're 0-21 vs P5 and lost 2 games to FCS schools. You should note that the ratings you're using ignore games against FCS schools. So the fact that C-USA has the worst record of any FBS conference against FCS schools isn't taken into consideration in that computer ranking. And one of those losses was to a 6-6 FCS school, ouch.

After Marshall, there are 2 teams that are clearly #2/#3 in CUSA: MTSU, who got spanked by both Memphis and BYU, and Louisiana Tech, who lost to an FCS school.

(11-24-2014 01:46 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 12:44 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  No argument from me...the data says that the MWC is #1, CUSA #2, American #3, MAC #4 and Sunbelt in at #5 for this year.

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

C-USA #3? They're 0-21 vs P5 and lost 2 games to FCS schools. You should note that the ratings you're using ignore games against FCS schools. So the fact that C-USA has the worst record of any FBS conference against FCS schools isn't taken into consideration in that computer ranking. And one of those losses was to a 6-6 FCS school, ouch.

After Marshall, there are 2 teams that are clearly #2/#3 in CUSA: MTSU, who got spanked by both Memphis and BYU, and Louisiana Tech, who lost to an FCS school.

Nope. It's correct. CUSA is #2 on the list. For the longest time we were holding the #1 spot of G5's due to our record against fellow G5 schools. If memory serves me correctly, CUSA finished with a record of 16-3 against other G5 competition this season.

(11-24-2014 03:48 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:46 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 12:44 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  No argument from me...the data says that the MWC is #1, CUSA #2, American #3, MAC #4 and Sunbelt in at #5 for this year.

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

C-USA #3? They're 0-21 vs P5 and lost 2 games to FCS schools. You should note that the ratings you're using ignore games against FCS schools. So the fact that C-USA has the worst record of any FBS conference against FCS schools isn't taken into consideration in that computer ranking. And one of those losses was to a 6-6 FCS school, ouch.

After Marshall, there are 2 teams that are clearly #2/#3 in CUSA: MTSU, who got spanked by both Memphis and BYU, and Louisiana Tech, who lost to an FCS school.

Nope. It's correct. CUSA is #2 on the list. For the longest time we were holding the #1 spot of G5's due to our record against fellow G5 schools. If memory serves me correctly, CUSA finished with a record of 16-3 against other G5 competition this season.

If CUSA was ever any higher than 3rd or 4th on any G5 list then why did it take Marshall so long to get ranked in the AP and Coaches poll? Why was a 10-0 Marshall not ranked in the CFP poll? The answer is that your conference stinks. CUSA is not a higher rated conference than the AAC and the MWC, when your conference has losses to FCS teams and no victories over higher rated P5 leagues? This is why a lot of people can't take Marshall fans seriously. You guys think that you should be ranked higher than Alabama, but you needed a miracle to beat Alabama-Birmingham.

(11-24-2014 03:53 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:48 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:46 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 12:44 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  No argument from me...the data says that the MWC is #1, CUSA #2, American #3, MAC #4 and Sunbelt in at #5 for this year.

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

C-USA #3? They're 0-21 vs P5 and lost 2 games to FCS schools. You should note that the ratings you're using ignore games against FCS schools. So the fact that C-USA has the worst record of any FBS conference against FCS schools isn't taken into consideration in that computer ranking. And one of those losses was to a 6-6 FCS school, ouch.

After Marshall, there are 2 teams that are clearly #2/#3 in CUSA: MTSU, who got spanked by both Memphis and BYU, and Louisiana Tech, who lost to an FCS school.

Nope. It's correct. CUSA is #2 on the list. For the longest time we were holding the #1 spot of G5's due to our record against fellow G5 schools. If memory serves me correctly, CUSA finished with a record of 16-3 against other G5 competition this season.

If CUSA was ever any higher than 3rd or 4th on any G5 list then why did it take Marshall so long to get ranked in the AP and Coaches poll? Why was a 10-0 Marshall not ranked in the CFP poll? The answer is that your conference stinks. CUSA is not a higher rated conference than the AAC and the MWC, when your conference has losses to FCS teams and no victories over higher rated P5 leagues? This is why a lot of people can't take Marshall fans seriously. You guys think that you should be ranked higher than Alabama, but you needed a miracle to beat Alabama-Birmingham.

I'd love to see a link to that quote.

(11-24-2014 04:16 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:53 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:48 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:46 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 12:44 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  No argument from me...the data says that the MWC is #1, CUSA #2, American #3, MAC #4 and Sunbelt in at #5 for this year.

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

C-USA #3? They're 0-21 vs P5 and lost 2 games to FCS schools. You should note that the ratings you're using ignore games against FCS schools. So the fact that C-USA has the worst record of any FBS conference against FCS schools isn't taken into consideration in that computer ranking. And one of those losses was to a 6-6 FCS school, ouch.

After Marshall, there are 2 teams that are clearly #2/#3 in CUSA: MTSU, who got spanked by both Memphis and BYU, and Louisiana Tech, who lost to an FCS school.

Nope. It's correct. CUSA is #2 on the list. For the longest time we were holding the #1 spot of G5's due to our record against fellow G5 schools. If memory serves me correctly, CUSA finished with a record of 16-3 against other G5 competition this season.

If CUSA was ever any higher than 3rd or 4th on any G5 list then why did it take Marshall so long to get ranked in the AP and Coaches poll? Why was a 10-0 Marshall not ranked in the CFP poll? The answer is that your conference stinks. CUSA is not a higher rated conference than the AAC and the MWC, when your conference has losses to FCS teams and no victories over higher rated P5 leagues? This is why a lot of people can't take Marshall fans seriously. You guys think that you should be ranked higher than Alabama, but you needed a miracle to beat Alabama-Birmingham.

I'd love to see a link to that quote.

Go over to the AAC board and you will see Marshall fans making their case as being the greatest college team of all time.

(11-24-2014 03:53 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:48 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:46 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 12:44 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  No argument from me...the data says that the MWC is #1, CUSA #2, American #3, MAC #4 and Sunbelt in at #5 for this year.

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

C-USA #3? They're 0-21 vs P5 and lost 2 games to FCS schools. You should note that the ratings you're using ignore games against FCS schools. So the fact that C-USA has the worst record of any FBS conference against FCS schools isn't taken into consideration in that computer ranking. And one of those losses was to a 6-6 FCS school, ouch.

After Marshall, there are 2 teams that are clearly #2/#3 in CUSA: MTSU, who got spanked by both Memphis and BYU, and Louisiana Tech, who lost to an FCS school.

Nope. It's correct. CUSA is #2 on the list. For the longest time we were holding the #1 spot of G5's due to our record against fellow G5 schools. If memory serves me correctly, CUSA finished with a record of 16-3 against other G5 competition this season.

If CUSA was ever any higher than 3rd or 4th on any G5 list then why did it take Marshall so long to get ranked in the AP and Coaches poll? Why was a 10-0 Marshall not ranked in the CFP poll? The answer is that your conference stinks. CUSA is not a higher rated conference than the AAC and the MWC, when your conference has losses to FCS teams and no victories over higher rated P5 leagues? This is why a lot of people can't take Marshall fans seriously. You guys think that you should be ranked higher than Alabama, but you needed a miracle to beat Alabama-Birmingham.

Still Butt-Hurt huh PirateMarv? I'm using the same rankings site that you ECU fans raved was the holy grail of conference football rankings. As for the UAB game....the difference between Marshall and ECU is that Marshall found a way to get it done and get a win while ECU withered away down the stretch. Oh and dont forget...we took you to the woodshed last year....59-28. You should be thankful to Doc that he called the dogs off late in the game or it could have been much, much worse.

(11-24-2014 04:26 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:53 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:48 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:46 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 12:44 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  No argument from me...the data says that the MWC is #1, CUSA #2, American #3, MAC #4 and Sunbelt in at #5 for this year.

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/...f_Men.html

C-USA #3? They're 0-21 vs P5 and lost 2 games to FCS schools. You should note that the ratings you're using ignore games against FCS schools. So the fact that C-USA has the worst record of any FBS conference against FCS schools isn't taken into consideration in that computer ranking. And one of those losses was to a 6-6 FCS school, ouch.

After Marshall, there are 2 teams that are clearly #2/#3 in CUSA: MTSU, who got spanked by both Memphis and BYU, and Louisiana Tech, who lost to an FCS school.

Nope. It's correct. CUSA is #2 on the list. For the longest time we were holding the #1 spot of G5's due to our record against fellow G5 schools. If memory serves me correctly, CUSA finished with a record of 16-3 against other G5 competition this season.

If CUSA was ever any higher than 3rd or 4th on any G5 list then why did it take Marshall so long to get ranked in the AP and Coaches poll? Why was a 10-0 Marshall not ranked in the CFP poll? The answer is that your conference stinks. CUSA is not a higher rated conference than the AAC and the MWC, when your conference has losses to FCS teams and no victories over higher rated P5 leagues? This is why a lot of people can't take Marshall fans seriously. You guys think that you should be ranked higher than Alabama, but you needed a miracle to beat Alabama-Birmingham.

Still Butt-Hurt huh PirateMarv? I'm using the same rankings site that you ECU fans raved was the holy grail of conference football rankings. As for the UAB game....the difference between Marshall and ECU is that Marshall found a way to get it done and get a win while ECU withered away down the stretch. Oh and dont forget...we took you to the woodshed last year....59-28. You should be thankful to Doc that he called the dogs off late in the game or it could have been much, much worse.

ECU leads the series with Marshall 10-5, which means that Marshall loses to ECU 67% of the time; so only a dufus would be celebrating winning 1 game when your program routinely gets it butt kicked.

And bringing up last year is not helping Marshall's cause. Hell Rice killed Marshall last year, but this year Marshall returned the favor; so winning one year and getting beat the next year is pretty common and I am pretty sure that ECU kids would have circle the Marshall game this year to return the favor. If fact ECU just beat you the year before last. The problem for Marshall is that you have not played any good teams this year. Not one.

(11-24-2014 04:53 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:55 AM)BLEEDBLUE81 Wrote:  2 Top 25 teams and 4 top 40. Mountain Division by far and away toughest G5 and compares favorably with Pac12 N, ACC and Bigten

Umm, yeah if you pick the worst teams and put them against the best teams. But a conference is a conference.

Boise State and CSU are good this year but neither of them are on the level of those BCS buster squads of the past.

Aside from those two the rest of the MWC is pretty average to terrible. Your basing things on win loss record and not who these teams actually played this season.

If you want to be technical the best team CSU beat all year was Boston College by three and I would hardly thump my chest about that.

There are a few MWC teams doing great but let's be honest here. There are about six Pac-12 teams that could run through the MWC this year. And I'm not so sure Boise or CSU are even better than Stanford who is 6-5.

CSU beat the Boston College team that beat USC and played FSU to a standstill at Chestnut Hill.

(11-24-2014 01:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 10:19 AM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  Gotta love this board. It must be a "weak year" for the G5 if another conference is better than your beloved AAC. It can't just be that the AAC was overhyped... no, anything but that!

The only thing overhyped is your reading comprehension. Never said a thing about "overhyped". I said this is a down year of the G5. There is NO team in the G5 that would even qualify for a BCS bowl under the old rules. This would have been a no BCS buster year. Lucky the new rules are in place. I personally think the best G5 teams are in the MW this year (Colorado St, Boise, and Utah St). The AAC sucks this year--theres some talented squads--but the teams are too inconsistent.

I am ok with the automatic access despite the weak year of the G5. It (semi) makes up for all the unfairness, the G5 has to put up with. Boo hoo for the big money programs.