(11-30-2014 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It would seemingly come down to four teams: Marshall, and AAC co-champs Memphis, Cincy, and UCF.

I would say that Marshall would deserve the Access spot, because ...

1) They have two fewer losses than the three AAC teams.

2) They would be a clear-cut conference champ whereas the AAC teams would be co-champs. Cincinnati would be in a particularly bad position because they lost to Memphis so would be even shakier as a "co-champ".

3) Believe it or not, as i predicted long ago, strength of schedule will be a minor factor. For example, as of right now, here are the respective SOS's of the four teams, according to Sagarin:

Marshall ... 131
Memphis ... 124
UCF ...... 126
Cincy ........ 97

Cincy has a decent SOS advantage, but the other three have played essentially identical schedules. So not nearly enough difference there to trump 2 more losses.

Couldn't be more wrong. Completely ignores that an undefeated Marshall was placed behind a two loss Boise---and that was BEFORE Marshall lost Saturday and Boise manhandled Utah State. The reality is that your scenario simply returns us to the same point we were last Tuesday when the committee placed Boise ahead of Marshall due to SOS.

(11-30-2014 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 01:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 01:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  30 spots is a huge difference. Sorry, I know the last thing you want is an AAC school to go to the Access bowl- but the committee has shown NO interest in sending Marshall at all. NONE.

Also especially with Memphis and Cincy- both them don't have as bad of a loss as Marshall did.

At the lower reaches, 30 spots is a trivial difference. It's the difference between a very soft schedule and a very very soft schedule. Not nearly enough to justify overcoming one loss, much less two.

And heck, if we average Massey and Sagarin, it isn't even close to 30 spots. More like 15-20.

That's probably why in Massey's composite of over 100 computers, we have:

26) Marshall
41) Memphis
48) Cincy
53) UCF

I agree. The difference between #10 and #40 is huge, but not the difference between #90 and #120. Not nearly enough to make up for two more losses.

I think the committee has shown that it is a huge difference. To think Marshall has ANY chance now with the committee is very foolish.

No, "Ken d" is correct: At the top reaches, a 30 point gap is massive. A team that has played the #5 schedule has played a MUCH tougher schedule than one that has played the #35 schedule. But #90 to #120 is much smaller.

For example, the #5 team is someone like TCU or Ohio State. That's a lot tougher than playing the #35 team, which is someone like Miami or Tennesse. It's the difference between playing a team with 1 loss versus 5 losses.

But once you get beyond 60, it's all craptastic. There are big diminishing returns in quality. The #90 team is someone like Bowling Green or Kansas. The #120 team is someone like UConn or Tulsa. Is that really much of a difference?

Hopefully, the committee sees this.

After that 100+ thread have you not figured out that the committee does not see things the way you do?

I have been saying all along they do not care about the access bowl that much. They will look it just like this.

UCF - This is who we really want but that loss to Uconn makes things problematic.
Marshall - Finally we can have a real excuse to punish these guys for that crap schedule.
NIU - We can live with them but we would rather not have them in given what happened last time.
Memphis - They played really strong against Ole Miss and UCLA. They have one loss against Houston we do not like but they did win their conference.
Boise - Hmm we like them, brand name, two losses. if they win they are in.

And like that other pointlessly long thread this is pointless.

Boise is not losing.

(11-30-2014 02:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And like that other pointlessly long thread this is pointless.

Boise is not losing.

Exactly.

(11-30-2014 02:28 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 01:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  At the lower reaches, 30 spots is a trivial difference. It's the difference between a very soft schedule and a very very soft schedule. Not nearly enough to justify overcoming one loss, much less two.

And heck, if we average Massey and Sagarin, it isn't even close to 30 spots. More like 15-20.

That's probably why in Massey's composite of over 100 computers, we have:

26) Marshall
41) Memphis
48) Cincy
53) UCF

I agree. The difference between #10 and #40 is huge, but not the difference between #90 and #120. Not nearly enough to make up for two more losses.

I think the committee has shown that it is a huge difference. To think Marshall has ANY chance now with the committee is very foolish.

No, "Ken d" is correct: At the top reaches, a 30 point gap is massive. A team that has played the #5 schedule has played a MUCH tougher schedule than one that has played the #35 schedule. But #90 to #120 is much smaller.

For example, the #5 team is someone like TCU or Ohio State. That's a lot tougher than playing the #35 team, which is someone like Miami or Tennesse. It's the difference between playing a team with 1 loss versus 5 losses.

But once you get beyond 60, it's all craptastic. There are big diminishing returns in quality. The #90 team is someone like Bowling Green or Kansas. The #120 team is someone like UConn or Tulsa. Is that really much of a difference?

Hopefully, the committee sees this.

After that 100+ thread have you not figured out that the committee does not see things the way you do?

I have been saying all along they do not care about the access bowl that much. They will look it just like this.

UCF - This is who we really want but that loss to Uconn makes things problematic.
Marshall - Finally we can have a real excuse to punish these guys for that crap schedule.
NIU - We can live with them but we would rather not have them in given what happened last time.
Memphis - They played really strong against Ole Miss and UCLA. They have one loss against Houston we do not like but they did win their conference.
Boise - Hmm we like them, brand name, two losses. if they win they are in.

What it is IMO in bold....but IMO Highly doubtful that the Broncos lose..

(11-30-2014 02:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And like that other pointlessly long thread this is pointless.

Boise is not losing.

Exactly.

How often has that argument been proven wrong in college football?

(11-30-2014 02:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And like that other pointlessly long thread this is pointless.

Boise is not losing.

Exactly.

How often has that argument been proven wrong in college football?

Often but people are on here acting like Boise has a strong chance of losing.

It will be HIGHLY unlikely for them to lose a rematch at home against SDSU. If they lose then by all means let's start debating.

But lady luck herself will have to line up on the other side of the field.

(11-30-2014 02:48 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And like that other pointlessly long thread this is pointless.

Boise is not losing.

Exactly.

How often has that argument been proven wrong in college football?

Often but people are on here acting like Boise has a strong chance of losing.

It will be HIGHLY unlikely for them to lose a rematch at home against SDSU. If they lose then by all means let's start debating.

But lady luck herself will have to line up on the other side of the field.

aren't playing SDSU. They're playing Fresno(head to head)

(11-30-2014 02:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  you are ******* ignoring that Iowa St is tied for 90th with Bowling Green at 7-5.

Oh and Marshall is at 124 not 120. 124 is Idaho. Yes there is a quality gap between Bowling Green and Idaho.

11-2 Northern Ill. winner of the MAC. If they lose. It is anybody's guess after that from after that probably either Marshall or AAC champ. Yes, the AAC played stronger SOS but it is not like any of the teams won the P5 games. They are equivalent stature. Not saying one deserves over another, but trying to pick the tallest midget for a basketball team. None really deserve it at that point. ECU really let the AAC down with that Temple loss, I think they would be in if they had only 1 AAC loss if Boise lost.

Boise is going to smash Fresno next week. No need for this thread.

(11-30-2014 03:01 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  you are ******* ignoring that Iowa St is tied for 90th with Bowling Green at 7-5.

Oh and Marshall is at 124 not 120. 124 is Idaho. Yes there is a quality gap between Bowling Green and Idaho.

11-2 Northern Ill. winner of the MAC. If they lose. It is anybody's guess after that from after that probably either Marshall or AAC champ. Yes, the AAC played stronger SOS but it is not like any of the teams won the P5 games. They are equivalent stature. Not saying one deserves over another, but trying to pick the tallest midget for a basketball team. None really deserve it at that point. ECU really let the AAC down with that Temple loss, I think they would be in if they had only 1 AAC loss if Boise lost.

NIU isn't all that at all. Don't think they would have a real shot at all..

(11-30-2014 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 03:01 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  you are ******* ignoring that Iowa St is tied for 90th with Bowling Green at 7-5.

Oh and Marshall is at 124 not 120. 124 is Idaho. Yes there is a quality gap between Bowling Green and Idaho.

11-2 Northern Ill. winner of the MAC. If they lose. It is anybody's guess after that from after that probably either Marshall or AAC champ. Yes, the AAC played stronger SOS but it is not like any of the teams won the P5 games. They are equivalent stature. Not saying one deserves over another, but trying to pick the tallest midget for a basketball team. None really deserve it at that point. ECU really let the AAC down with that Temple loss, I think they would be in if they had only 1 AAC loss if Boise lost.

NIU isn't all that at all. Don't think they would have a real shot at all..

Ok, if I were on the committee, my NIU argument.
I would not say they are that all but their the deserving #2 team. I think beating a P5 team. Yes, I know a 5-7 team, but NIU kept NW out of a bowl due to that win. AAC Champs and Marshal have no P5 wins. Loss to Arkansas not a bad loss. In conference loss to a 7-5 team is not worse than AAC or Marshall in conference loss. 11-2 team plays one more game, two more wins than 9-3 AAC. Played better OOC than Marshall at 12-1. As I stated, I think the AAC not having a CCG and multiple champs will be negative for the AAC. Just a hunch, the committee would prefer an outright champion.

Any money, the committee would love K. State to beat Baylor next week and jump OSU over TCU if OSU beats Wisc. Thus forcing B12 into wanting a CCG allowing the B12 expansion rumors to go crazy again.

(11-30-2014 02:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  you are ******* ignoring that Iowa St is tied for 90th with Bowling Green at 7-5.

Oh and Marshall is at 124 not 120. 124 is Idaho. Yes there is a quality gap between Bowling Green and Idaho.

The point wasn't where Marshall was at, it's the size of the SOS gap between Marshall and the AAC teams, which if we look at Sagarin, Massey, and Colley, is about 15-20 spots, about the difference between 100 and 120.

No matter what teams are involved, that's a tiny difference in quality. Trivial.

(11-30-2014 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It would seemingly come down to four teams: Marshall, and AAC co-champs Memphis, Cincy, and UCF.

I would say that Marshall would deserve the Access spot, because ...

1) They have two fewer losses than the three AAC teams.

2) They would be a clear-cut conference champ whereas the AAC teams would be co-champs. Cincinnati would be in a particularly bad position because they lost to Memphis so would be even shakier as a "co-champ".

3) Believe it or not, as i predicted long ago, strength of schedule will be a minor factor. For example, as of right now, here are the respective SOS's of the four teams, according to Sagarin:

Marshall ... 131
Memphis ... 124
UCF ...... 126
Cincy ........ 97

Cincy has a decent SOS advantage, but the other three have played essentially identical schedules. So not nearly enough difference there to trump 2 more losses.

Couldn't be more wrong. Completely ignores that an undefeated Marshall was placed behind a two loss Boise---and that was BEFORE Marshall lost Saturday and Boise manhandled Utah State. The reality is that your scenario simply returns us to the same point we were last Tuesday when the committee placed Boise ahead of Marshall due to SOS.

I haven't looked in to Boise's SOS, which if the gap between it and Marshall was great last week, would explain the committee's action.

What I have looked at is Marshall's SOS versus the three AAC teams, and any can see the gap isn't significant.

Certainly not enough to justify overcoming TWO more losses.

Quote:Ok, if I were on the committee, my NIU argument.
I would not say they are that all but their the deserving #2 team. I think beating a P5 team. Yes, I know a 5-7 team, but NIU kept NW out of a bowl due to that win. AAC Champs and Marshal have no P5 wins. Loss to Arkansas not a bad loss. In conference loss to a 7-5 team is not worse than AAC or Marshall in conference loss. 11-2 team plays one more game, two more wins than 9-3 AAC. Played better OOC than Marshall at 12-1. As I stated, I think the AAC not having a CCG and multiple champs will be negative for the AAC. Just a hunch, the committee would prefer an outright champion.

I want to say NIU would be ahead of Marshall at this time, but I can't say that. Marshall's at least a tad over them -- one can see that in virtually all polls: Sagarin, AP, USAToday, etc.

1) The loss to Arkansas by 38 was a bad loss. If they lost by 17? Not bad. Lost by 7? Good. Lost by 38? Bad.
2) The loss to 7-5 CMU at home by 17 was worse than Marshall losing to 7-5 W Ky by 1 in OT, who STOMPED BGSU, the MAC East Champ. Both are bad -- the CMU one is worse if you want to compare.
3) A P5 team doesn't mean a lot by itself. It implies something. Beating a 3-9 P5 team is never as good as beating an 8-4 G5 team. Beating a 5-7 P5 team can sometimes be not as good as beating a 8-4 G5 team.
4) NIU was winning "Florida State style". They don't have a strong SoS in their wins. Toledo, NW, WMU are their top 3, by an average of 7 points.
5) They also struggled in their wins against poor teams the same way Marshall stomped many of theirs. That makes up for the SoS difference.

BUT:
1) NW is a strong 5-7 team. They beat Wisconsin & ND. They're a weird bunch, it means something. However, not being bowl-eligible, it doesn't carry too much weight.

2) They're going to look at Bowl-Eligible Top-Teams beat + negative effect of losses

Going by Sagarin Ratings of the team's FBS Opponents (both stomped their FCS teams):

Marshall (11-1):
#79 W. Kentucky - LOST BY 1 OT
#84 Rice - Won by 27
#90 @UAB - Won by 5
#102 MTSU - Won by 25
#117 @Old Dom - Won by 42
#125 @FL-Int - Won by 32
#131 Ohio - Won by 30
#135 FL-Atl - Won by 19
#136 @Akron - Won by 31
#139 @SMiss - Won by 46
#152 @Miami - Won by 14


NIU (10-2):
#14 @Arkansas - LOST BY 38
#62 @Northwestern - Won by 8
#81 @WMU - Won by 10
#82 Toledo - Won by 3
#101 CMU - LOST BY 17
#121 @BSU - Won by 14
#131 @Ohio - Won by 7
#152 Miami - Won by 10
#157 @UNLV - Won by 14
#164 Kent St - Won by 3
#200 @EMU - Won by 11

If you group all the teams not close to #100 being grouped together, yeah, that helps NIU. However:

1) Arkansas is not a #14 team. #30-something at best. But they made Missouri close! Yeah, Indiana beat Missouri. They're the BGSU of their MAC-East like division of the SEC. :) Computer rankings have their outliers. Arkansas is a good team, don't get me wrong. Just not a Top 15 team. More like a Top 35 team. GOOD to beat. BAD to get stomped by if you're vying for Top-G5 or ranking spot.

2) NIU's 17-pt loss to CMU was worse than Marshall's to W. Kentucky in OT.

3) NIU's best win (@NW by 8) is better than Marshall's best win (Rice by 27).

4) Marshall's 'bad win' against @UAB by 5 is roughly the same as NIU's win by 3 against Toledo at home.

(11-30-2014 06:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It would seemingly come down to four teams: Marshall, and AAC co-champs Memphis, Cincy, and UCF.

I would say that Marshall would deserve the Access spot, because ...

1) They have two fewer losses than the three AAC teams.

2) They would be a clear-cut conference champ whereas the AAC teams would be co-champs. Cincinnati would be in a particularly bad position because they lost to Memphis so would be even shakier as a "co-champ".

3) Believe it or not, as i predicted long ago, strength of schedule will be a minor factor. For example, as of right now, here are the respective SOS's of the four teams, according to Sagarin:

Marshall ... 131
Memphis ... 124
UCF ...... 126
Cincy ........ 97

Cincy has a decent SOS advantage, but the other three have played essentially identical schedules. So not nearly enough difference there to trump 2 more losses.

Couldn't be more wrong. Completely ignores that an undefeated Marshall was placed behind a two loss Boise---and that was BEFORE Marshall lost Saturday and Boise manhandled Utah State. The reality is that your scenario simply returns us to the same point we were last Tuesday when the committee placed Boise ahead of Marshall due to SOS.

I haven't looked in to Boise's SOS, which if the gap between it and Marshall was great last week, would explain the committee's action.

What I have looked at is Marshall's SOS versus the three AAC teams, and any can see the gap isn't significant.

Certainly not enough to justify overcoming TWO more losses.

Sagarin says Boise's strength of schedule is 69th.

Marshall, Memphis, and UCF have Sagarin SOS rankings that are comparable to the best FCS teams -- North Dakota State is 129th, Northern Iowa is 113th, and NDSU and UNI each played only one FBS opponent this year.

(11-30-2014 07:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 06:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It would seemingly come down to four teams: Marshall, and AAC co-champs Memphis, Cincy, and UCF.

I would say that Marshall would deserve the Access spot, because ...

1) They have two fewer losses than the three AAC teams.

2) They would be a clear-cut conference champ whereas the AAC teams would be co-champs. Cincinnati would be in a particularly bad position because they lost to Memphis so would be even shakier as a "co-champ".

3) Believe it or not, as i predicted long ago, strength of schedule will be a minor factor. For example, as of right now, here are the respective SOS's of the four teams, according to Sagarin:

Marshall ... 131
Memphis ... 124
UCF ...... 126
Cincy ........ 97

Cincy has a decent SOS advantage, but the other three have played essentially identical schedules. So not nearly enough difference there to trump 2 more losses.

Couldn't be more wrong. Completely ignores that an undefeated Marshall was placed behind a two loss Boise---and that was BEFORE Marshall lost Saturday and Boise manhandled Utah State. The reality is that your scenario simply returns us to the same point we were last Tuesday when the committee placed Boise ahead of Marshall due to SOS.

I haven't looked in to Boise's SOS, which if the gap between it and Marshall was great last week, would explain the committee's action.

What I have looked at is Marshall's SOS versus the three AAC teams, and any can see the gap isn't significant.

Certainly not enough to justify overcoming TWO more losses.

Sagarin says Boise's strength of schedule is 69th.

Marshall, Memphis, and UCF have Sagarin SOS rankings that are comparable to the best FCS teams -- North Dakota State is 129th, Northern Iowa is 113th, and NDSU and UNI each played only one FBS opponent this year.

Agreed, which is why I think it is silly (as some have) to suggest that SOS is a reason to give the Access slot to UCF or Memphis over Marshall.

Memphis and UCF will have played slightly better schedules, but nothing close to what should be needed to overcome two more losses.

(11-30-2014 02:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And like that other pointlessly long thread this is pointless.

Boise is not losing.

Exactly.

Remember when everyone assumed unbeaten Houston was going to crush Southern Miss in the C-USA title game back in 2011? How did that turn out?

Don't get me wrong - I think Boise is going to win too. But should anyone truly be shocked if Fresno beats them? Their first game was tied in the 4th quarter and ended 37-27. It wasn't a blowout, and usually, when there's a rematch the losing team learns more from a loss than a winning team.

(11-30-2014 07:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And like that other pointlessly long thread this is pointless.

Boise is not losing.

Exactly.

Remember when everyone assumed unbeaten Houston was going to crush Southern Miss in the C-USA title game back in 2011? How did that turn out?

Anything can happen, but Boise losing would be a far greater upset.

2011 Southern Miss was 10-2 (and ranked #24 by AP) going into that game with Houston.

2014 Fresno State is 6-6 (and, needless to say, unranked) going into the MWC title game.

(11-30-2014 07:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 07:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 02:31 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And like that other pointlessly long thread this is pointless.

Boise is not losing.

Exactly.

Remember when everyone assumed unbeaten Houston was going to crush Southern Miss in the C-USA title game back in 2011? How did that turn out?

Anything can happen, but Boise losing would be a far greater upset.

2011 Southern Miss was 10-2 (and ranked #24 by AP) going into that game with Houston.

2014 Fresno State is 6-6 (and, needless to say, unranked) going into the MWC title game.

Maybe so, but the talk was the same, i.e., "no way Houston gonna lose".

And we do have a game between Fresno and Boise to go on, one that was much closer than their respective records would have predicted.