(12-20-2015 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 01:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 10:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 10:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is bogus for a P5 conference to claim bowl supremacy via wins over G5 teams.

In making that argument, you are starting from the premise that G5 (or non-P5) teams are inferior per se. You are assuming that a 9-3 BYU team is far inferior to 9-3 Utah. You are assuming that a 7-5 New Mexico team (playing on its home field, no less) is far inferior to a 6-6 Arizona team. That's the only way you can possibly argue that beating those teams is bogus.

Look, we all know that, fairly or not, G5 are categorically regarded as inferior. That's why the CFP gives the entire G5 one Access slot, and why the CFP committee clearly favors G5 teams that schedule P5 teams (even lousy ones like Kansas) and it favors P5 teams that schedule other P5 teams OOC rather than G5 teams.

Plus, even in this specific case, look at the Massey rankings: Arizona is #66, New Mexico is #89. Utah is #24, BYU is #38. So the PAC is playing teams that are objectively a lot weaker than themselves.

In contrast, look at comparable SEC teams: Auburn, 6-6 and 10th place in the SEC, comparable to Arizona, isn't playing #89 New Mexico, they are playing #28 Memphis.

Tennessee, #23 in Massey and comparable to Utah, isn't playing #38 BYU, they are playing #13 Northwestern.

So it isn't just that the PAC teams are playing G5, they are playing teams that are much weaker than comparable teams in other P5 conferences, thus making their win percentage "bogus".

You could have just said that the PAC schools started off with wins over lower-rated teams than what other conferences are playing. Whether those teams were P5 or G5 is immaterial.

It is material, because i was making a general point about the PAC bowl lineup, not confined to just this year. Bowls are contractual, and since on average G5 teams are lower-rated than P5 teams, if you sign up for bowls with G5 teams like the PAC, you will tend to play weaker teams in the long run.

If you actually looked at that "Massey composite" rating, you would have seen that Arkansas and LSU have huge mismatches; their opponents are each about 30 places below their own rating. Why should a Mighty SEC Team play any bowl like that? Talk about bogus! They should just cancel the bowl games instead of playing bogus mismatches like those, dontcha think?

Oh, wait, I know what you're going to say, now that we know you're not really a G5 fan: "But, but, Kansas State has Big 12 patches on their jerseys! No matter what their resume is, that automatically makes them superior to BYU or any team in the MWC or AAC!"

(12-20-2015 06:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 01:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 10:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  In making that argument, you are starting from the premise that G5 (or non-P5) teams are inferior per se. You are assuming that a 9-3 BYU team is far inferior to 9-3 Utah. You are assuming that a 7-5 New Mexico team (playing on its home field, no less) is far inferior to a 6-6 Arizona team. That's the only way you can possibly argue that beating those teams is bogus.

Look, we all know that, fairly or not, G5 are categorically regarded as inferior. That's why the CFP gives the entire G5 one Access slot, and why the CFP committee clearly favors G5 teams that schedule P5 teams (even lousy ones like Kansas) and it favors P5 teams that schedule other P5 teams OOC rather than G5 teams.

Plus, even in this specific case, look at the Massey rankings: Arizona is #66, New Mexico is #89. Utah is #24, BYU is #38. So the PAC is playing teams that are objectively a lot weaker than themselves.

In contrast, look at comparable SEC teams: Auburn, 6-6 and 10th place in the SEC, comparable to Arizona, isn't playing #89 New Mexico, they are playing #28 Memphis.

Tennessee, #23 in Massey and comparable to Utah, isn't playing #38 BYU, they are playing #13 Northwestern.

So it isn't just that the PAC teams are playing G5, they are playing teams that are much weaker than comparable teams in other P5 conferences, thus making their win percentage "bogus".

You could have just said that the PAC schools started off with wins over lower-rated teams than what other conferences are playing. Whether those teams were P5 or G5 is immaterial.

It is material, because i was making a general point about the PAC bowl lineup, not confined to just this year. Bowls are contractual, and since on average G5 teams are lower-rated than P5 teams, if you sign up for bowls with G5 teams like the PAC, you will tend to play weaker teams in the long run.

If you actually looked at that "Massey composite" rating, you would have seen that Arkansas and LSU have huge mismatches; their opponents are each about 30 places below their own rating. Why should a Mighty SEC Team play any bowl like that? Talk about bogus! They should just cancel the bowl games instead of playing bogus mismatches like those, dontcha think?

Trying to bust on LSU and Arkansas compared to the PAC?

Arkansas is SEC #6, they are playing #56 K-State. PAC #6 UCLA is playing #53 Nebraska, very comparable.

LSU is SEC #7 and is playing #44 T-Tech.PAC #7 CAL is playing #68 Air Force, much worse than who LSU is playing.

So even on those counts, the PAC is playing softer opponents, once again because of G5.

I never said the SEC is mighty, i suspect if we used the B1G instead we'd see the same thing: the PAC plays too many soft G5 opponents in bowls. Fully 40% of their bowl games are against non-P5.

And why on earth would I be a "G5" fan? I'm a USF fan, and I don't like being G5. I want USF to exit the G5 yesterday and become P5.

(12-20-2015 07:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 06:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 01:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Look, we all know that, fairly or not, G5 are categorically regarded as inferior. That's why the CFP gives the entire G5 one Access slot, and why the CFP committee clearly favors G5 teams that schedule P5 teams (even lousy ones like Kansas) and it favors P5 teams that schedule other P5 teams OOC rather than G5 teams.

Plus, even in this specific case, look at the Massey rankings: Arizona is #66, New Mexico is #89. Utah is #24, BYU is #38. So the PAC is playing teams that are objectively a lot weaker than themselves.

In contrast, look at comparable SEC teams: Auburn, 6-6 and 10th place in the SEC, comparable to Arizona, isn't playing #89 New Mexico, they are playing #28 Memphis.

Tennessee, #23 in Massey and comparable to Utah, isn't playing #38 BYU, they are playing #13 Northwestern.

So it isn't just that the PAC teams are playing G5, they are playing teams that are much weaker than comparable teams in other P5 conferences, thus making their win percentage "bogus".

You could have just said that the PAC schools started off with wins over lower-rated teams than what other conferences are playing. Whether those teams were P5 or G5 is immaterial.

It is material, because i was making a general point about the PAC bowl lineup, not confined to just this year. Bowls are contractual, and since on average G5 teams are lower-rated than P5 teams, if you sign up for bowls with G5 teams like the PAC, you will tend to play weaker teams in the long run.

If you actually looked at that "Massey composite" rating, you would have seen that Arkansas and LSU have huge mismatches; their opponents are each about 30 places below their own rating. Why should a Mighty SEC Team play any bowl like that? Talk about bogus! They should just cancel the bowl games instead of playing bogus mismatches like those, dontcha think?

Trying to bust on LSU and Arkansas compared to the PAC?

Arkansas is SEC #6, they are playing #56 K-State. PAC #6 UCLA is playing #53 Nebraska, very comparable.

LSU is SEC #7 and is playing #44 T-Tech.PAC #7 CAL is playing #68 Air Force, much worse than who LSU is playing.

So even on those counts, the PAC is playing softer opponents, once again because of G5.

I never said the SEC is mighty, i suspect if we used the B1G instead we'd see the same thing: the PAC plays too many soft G5 opponents in bowls. Fully 40% of their bowl games are against non-P5.

And why on earth would I be a "G5" fan? I'm a USF fan, and I don't like being G5. I want USF to exit the G5 yesterday and become P5.

I would like to see no differences between the schools. I see FBS and FCS as one and equal to each other. I consider the top D2 schools are the same as the likes of Ohio State and them. People bash me for my thinking and thoughts on the issue instead of what I am trying to say. The fans want only their school to get into a P5 conference. Me, I think that a lot of schools deserve to be part of the power structure. It is better to have more to work as a group instead of being small like the group of P5 of 65 schools. All the other schools could file law suits against the P5. How many schools can you count that could go against the P5? Go5, FCS, D1 non-football, D2, D3, NAIA, NCCAA, ACCA, USCAA, and many Independents that have no or lost accreditation, and the NJCAA. That could be thousands against 65.

(12-21-2015 03:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 07:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 06:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 01:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  You could have just said that the PAC schools started off with wins over lower-rated teams than what other conferences are playing. Whether those teams were P5 or G5 is immaterial.

It is material, because i was making a general point about the PAC bowl lineup, not confined to just this year. Bowls are contractual, and since on average G5 teams are lower-rated than P5 teams, if you sign up for bowls with G5 teams like the PAC, you will tend to play weaker teams in the long run.

If you actually looked at that "Massey composite" rating, you would have seen that Arkansas and LSU have huge mismatches; their opponents are each about 30 places below their own rating. Why should a Mighty SEC Team play any bowl like that? Talk about bogus! They should just cancel the bowl games instead of playing bogus mismatches like those, dontcha think?

Trying to bust on LSU and Arkansas compared to the PAC?

Arkansas is SEC #6, they are playing #56 K-State. PAC #6 UCLA is playing #53 Nebraska, very comparable.

LSU is SEC #7 and is playing #44 T-Tech.PAC #7 CAL is playing #68 Air Force, much worse than who LSU is playing.

So even on those counts, the PAC is playing softer opponents, once again because of G5.

I never said the SEC is mighty, i suspect if we used the B1G instead we'd see the same thing: the PAC plays too many soft G5 opponents in bowls. Fully 40% of their bowl games are against non-P5.

And why on earth would I be a "G5" fan? I'm a USF fan, and I don't like being G5. I want USF to exit the G5 yesterday and become P5.

I would like to see no differences between the schools. I see FBS and FCS as one and equal to each other. I consider the top D2 schools are the same as the likes of Ohio State and them. People bash me for my thinking and thoughts on the issue instead of what I am trying to say. The fans want only their school to get into a P5 conference. Me, I think that a lot of schools deserve to be part of the power structure. It is better to have more to work as a group instead of being small like the group of P5 of 65 schools. All the other schools could file law suits against the P5. How many schools can you count that could go against the P5? Go5, FCS, D1 non-football, D2, D3, NAIA, NCCAA, ACCA, USCAA, and many Independents that have no or lost accreditation, and the NJCAA. That could be thousands against 65.

Problem is, this issue was essentially settled 31 years ago, when the supreme court ruled that the NCAA couldn't force all of the football schools into one big NCAA TV contract with equal revenue sharing. And that ruling was from a court significantly more liberal than today's supreme court.

No lawsuit or court can ever change the fact that the top conferences generate the huge bulk, about 90%, of the fan and TV interest in college football, nor will they ever force those conferences to take less than that share of money from any sources - bowls, TV, playoffs, etc.