(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

I don't see a 3-loss champ making the NY6 from any conference.

We tend to overrate AAC schedules. E.g., last year at this time i had a debate with someone (IIRC, one of the Memphis fans) about Houston's schedule vs Boise's. They insisted that because Houston had played Oklahoma and Louisville, their SOS would end up being much better than Boise's. But a schedule is the entire 12 games, not just the one or two you may recall.

In the end, by Sagarin ratings, they were actually very close, within 4-5 SOS positions of each other.

Upshot, if it comes down to that, I don't expect Boise and SMU to end up with nearly enough of a SOS difference to make up for SMU having one more loss.

Of course, it's not coming down to that, because there's a 98% chance the AAC champ will have no more than two losses, making us the easy pick for the NY6 slot.

(11-09-2017 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

I don't see a 3-loss champ making the NY6 from any conference.

I don't think a 3-loss team deserves a NY6 bowl, but sometimes the autobids put one there anyway. Last year's Sugar Bowl had a 4-loss Auburn whose best win was over a 4 loss LSU

(11-09-2017 01:54 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

I don't see a 3-loss champ making the NY6 from any conference.

I don't think a 3-loss team deserves a NY6 bowl, but sometimes the autobids put one there anyway. Last year's Sugar Bowl had a 4-loss Auburn whose best win was over a 4 loss LSU

Yes, and the G5 slot is an auto-bid, in the sense that it HAS to be filled by a G5 champ even if none of them are any good. In this case, i don't think it will come to that.

(11-09-2017 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

I don't see a 3-loss champ making the NY6 from any conference.

We tend to overrate AAC schedules. E.g., last year at this time i had a debate with someone (IIRC, one of the Memphis fans) about Houston's schedule vs Boise's. They insisted that because Houston had played Oklahoma and Louisville, their SOS would end up being much better than Boise's. But a schedule is the entire 12 games, not just the one or two you may recall.

In the end, by Sagarin ratings, they were actually very close, within 4-5 SOS positions of each other.

Upshot, if it comes down to that, I don't expect Boise and SMU to end up with nearly enough of a SOS difference to make up for SMU having one more loss.

Of course, it's not coming down to that, because there's a 98% chance the AAC champ will have no more than two losses, making us the easy pick for the NY6 slot.

This. Has there been any history of putting any of our teams ahead of another with less losses because of SOS?

Look at the current rankings. UCF with 0 losses at the top. Memphis with 1-loss is next, then 1-loss USF, then 2 and 3 loss teams receiving votes. Frankly, I don't think they spend enough time agonizing over the numbers in ranking our teams.

They'll basically just put the teams in buckets by number of losses, and pick one from group with the least. So far, with same wins/losses, our conference seems to trump the others. Once an additional loss is added, all bets are off.

(11-09-2017 12:44 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 11:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:49 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:43 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:35 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  One of UCF, Memphis and USF should get the Access Bowl Bid. If the near impossible happens with AAC upsets, the only 2 schools with a shot are 8-2 SDSU & 7-2 Boise of the MWC. I don’t see any other contenders after Toledo (8-2) lost in Maction last night.

I'd include SMU too. Should they win out, they'd have wins vs Memphis and UCF/USF. Better wins and better losses than both SFSU and Boise.

Not sure how well that would go. With 3 losses, I don't think they'd get ranked in time to be the "highest ranked". While it's doubtful, they would maybe take a 2-loss MAC or MWC champ over a 3-loss from ours that's not a currently ranked team. Cuz Western Michigan.

SMU with three losses, would be behind Boise, Toledo, and SDSU if those teams finished 10-2. They would be ahead of Arkansas State and North Texas as Champs, as they beat them. Other than that, SMU is a long shot.

My vote is a 12-1 or 11-2 Memphis team gets it. They pass the eye test.

I agree that SMU isn't getting in over a MWC Champ of Boise or SDSU with 2 losses. Just don't see that happening.

Sfsu isnt even making the wac championship game.

(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

This is all assuming the committee thoughtfully reviews each G5 candidate, which is a stretch. They'll probably have an unpaid intern choose our team so they can focus on debating whether the loser of the SEC CCG should get in the playoffs.

If SMU were to beat Memphis they would no longer be ranked so it wouldn't be any different than stanford not being ranked. Just like the loser of the UCF/USF game won't be ranked and if SMU were to beat that team they likely wouldn't be ranked anymore either. In fact stanford would likely still be receiving votes while those teams disappeared into the abyss.

(10-15-2017 10:19 AM)megadrone Wrote:  SDSU looked horrible last night. If either UCF or USF win out, it's theirs.

If Memphis wins out, they have a good chance especially if SDSU doesn't win the MW.

If Houston somehow wins the AAC then it gets interesting. If Navy wins out, they would have a win over Notre Dame and that would likely put them over anyone other than SDSU.

It'll be interesting to watch but only UCF/USF is in the driver's seat. Memphis is riding shotgun or possibly in a dual wheel trainer's car as the trainer. SDSU needs an AAC West champion to win.

Wut? If Memphis wins out, including a win over usf/ucf in the ccg, they'll have one loss and a big ccg win, theyll be a lock.

(11-09-2017 02:46 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

This is all assuming the committee thoughtfully reviews each G5 candidate, which is a stretch. They'll probably have an unpaid intern choose our team so they can focus on debating whether the loser of the SEC CCG should get in the playoffs.

If SMU were to beat Memphis they would no longer be ranked so it wouldn't be any different than stanford not being ranked. Just like the loser of the UCF/USF game won't be ranked and if SMU were to beat that team they likely wouldn't be ranked anymore either. In fact stanford would likely still be receiving votes while those teams disappeared into the abyss.

Well I mean SMU would beat the winner of the UCF/USF game in the CCG. But good point that 2-loss Memphis and 2-loss USF would probably be unranked, though I would like to think UCF would still be ranked at 11-1

(11-09-2017 03:06 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:46 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

This is all assuming the committee thoughtfully reviews each G5 candidate, which is a stretch. They'll probably have an unpaid intern choose our team so they can focus on debating whether the loser of the SEC CCG should get in the playoffs.

If SMU were to beat Memphis they would no longer be ranked so it wouldn't be any different than stanford not being ranked. Just like the loser of the UCF/USF game won't be ranked and if SMU were to beat that team they likely wouldn't be ranked anymore either. In fact stanford would likely still be receiving votes while those teams disappeared into the abyss.

Well I mean SMU would beat the winner of the UCF/USF game in the CCG. But good point that 2-loss Memphis and 2-loss USF would probably be unranked, though I would like to think UCF would still be ranked at 11-1

I doubt seriously a 2 loss AAC team isnt ranked at the end of the year. When's the last time a 2 AAC loss team wasnt ranked at the end of the season when all was said and done?

(11-09-2017 03:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:06 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:46 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

This is all assuming the committee thoughtfully reviews each G5 candidate, which is a stretch. They'll probably have an unpaid intern choose our team so they can focus on debating whether the loser of the SEC CCG should get in the playoffs.

If SMU were to beat Memphis they would no longer be ranked so it wouldn't be any different than stanford not being ranked. Just like the loser of the UCF/USF game won't be ranked and if SMU were to beat that team they likely wouldn't be ranked anymore either. In fact stanford would likely still be receiving votes while those teams disappeared into the abyss.

Well I mean SMU would beat the winner of the UCF/USF game in the CCG. But good point that 2-loss Memphis and 2-loss USF would probably be unranked, though I would like to think UCF would still be ranked at 11-1

I doubt seriously a 2 loss AAC team isnt ranked at the end of the year. When's the last time a 2 AAC loss team wasnt ranked at the end of the season when all was said and done?

Last year. South Florida.

As champion, it has not happened, as last years Champion had three losses. the 2015 Champion had one loss, and the 2014 champs had three losses.

(11-09-2017 03:54 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:06 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:46 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:14 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The selection committee has undefeated Miami and Wisconsin below nearly all the 1 loss teams, and undefeated UCF below nearly all the 2 loss teams. They value better wins over better record.

A 3-loss SMU would have wins over a ranked Memphis, and a ranked UCF/USF in the title game. SDSU, Boise, and Toledo will probably end up with zero wins over ranked teams unless Stanford manages to upset Washington and Notre Dame

This is all assuming the committee thoughtfully reviews each G5 candidate, which is a stretch. They'll probably have an unpaid intern choose our team so they can focus on debating whether the loser of the SEC CCG should get in the playoffs.

If SMU were to beat Memphis they would no longer be ranked so it wouldn't be any different than stanford not being ranked. Just like the loser of the UCF/USF game won't be ranked and if SMU were to beat that team they likely wouldn't be ranked anymore either. In fact stanford would likely still be receiving votes while those teams disappeared into the abyss.

Well I mean SMU would beat the winner of the UCF/USF game in the CCG. But good point that 2-loss Memphis and 2-loss USF would probably be unranked, though I would like to think UCF would still be ranked at 11-1

I doubt seriously a 2 loss AAC team isnt ranked at the end of the year. When's the last time a 2 AAC loss team wasnt ranked at the end of the season when all was said and done?

Last year. South Florida.

As champion, it has not happened, as last years Champion had three losses. the 2015 Champion had one loss, and the 2014 champs had three losses.

I'm fairly certain USF was ranked in the final AP poll last year.

(11-09-2017 03:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:54 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:47 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:06 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:46 PM)PT_american Wrote:  If SMU were to beat Memphis they would no longer be ranked so it wouldn't be any different than stanford not being ranked. Just like the loser of the UCF/USF game won't be ranked and if SMU were to beat that team they likely wouldn't be ranked anymore either. In fact stanford would likely still be receiving votes while those teams disappeared into the abyss.

Well I mean SMU would beat the winner of the UCF/USF game in the CCG. But good point that 2-loss Memphis and 2-loss USF would probably be unranked, though I would like to think UCF would still be ranked at 11-1

I doubt seriously a 2 loss AAC team isnt ranked at the end of the year. When's the last time a 2 AAC loss team wasnt ranked at the end of the season when all was said and done?

Last year. South Florida.

As champion, it has not happened, as last years Champion had three losses. the 2015 Champion had one loss, and the 2014 champs had three losses.

I'm fairly certain USF was ranked in the final AP poll last year.

They were.

The topic at hand is Access Bowl, of which the AP does not effect.

I don't see any of UConn, Temple, or USF beating UCF. So, UCF goes 13-0 and again the AAC looks like a power conference and better than some P5 conferences. P4 fans will be searching for some stat to argue otherwise

Both the winner and runner-up of the championship game should end up in the final CFP ranking unless something wonky happens. Last year, Navy stayed in with the loss and Temple entered the final poll with the win. Interestingly, Temple's lone FBS OOC win last year was Charlotte. So, they made it based solely on their AAC record in a year where the conference wasn't the Access Bowl rep.

(11-09-2017 02:38 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 12:44 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 11:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:49 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:43 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  I'd include SMU too. Should they win out, they'd have wins vs Memphis and UCF/USF. Better wins and better losses than both SFSU and Boise.

Not sure how well that would go. With 3 losses, I don't think they'd get ranked in time to be the "highest ranked". While it's doubtful, they would maybe take a 2-loss MAC or MWC champ over a 3-loss from ours that's not a currently ranked team. Cuz Western Michigan.

SMU with three losses, would be behind Boise, Toledo, and SDSU if those teams finished 10-2. They would be ahead of Arkansas State and North Texas as Champs, as they beat them. Other than that, SMU is a long shot.

My vote is a 12-1 or 11-2 Memphis team gets it. They pass the eye test.

I agree that SMU isn't getting in over a MWC Champ of Boise or SDSU with 2 losses. Just don't see that happening.

Sfsu isnt even making the wac championship game.

There is a 100% chance that SDSU will not make the WAC Championship game

(11-09-2017 06:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:38 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 12:44 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 11:24 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 09:49 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Not sure how well that would go. With 3 losses, I don't think they'd get ranked in time to be the "highest ranked". While it's doubtful, they would maybe take a 2-loss MAC or MWC champ over a 3-loss from ours that's not a currently ranked team. Cuz Western Michigan.

SMU with three losses, would be behind Boise, Toledo, and SDSU if those teams finished 10-2. They would be ahead of Arkansas State and North Texas as Champs, as they beat them. Other than that, SMU is a long shot.

My vote is a 12-1 or 11-2 Memphis team gets it. They pass the eye test.

I agree that SMU isn't getting in over a MWC Champ of Boise or SDSU with 2 losses. Just don't see that happening.

Sfsu isnt even making the wac championship game.

There is a 100% chance that SDSU will not make the WAC Championship game

Yes, sad isnt it? Did they lose again? I live east of the rockies and no one here ever knows when they play.

(11-09-2017 05:16 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  I don't see any of UConn, Temple, or USF beating UCF. So, UCF goes 13-0 and again the AAC looks like a power conference and better than some P5 conferences. P4 fans will be searching for some stat to argue otherwise

I would congratulate them, 2 BCS\Acces Bowls is damm impressive

(11-09-2017 05:51 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Both the winner and runner-up of the championship game should end up in the final CFP ranking unless something wonky happens. Last year, Navy stayed in with the loss and Temple entered the final poll with the win. Interestingly, Temple's lone FBS OOC win last year was Charlotte. So, they made it based solely on their AAC record in a year where the conference wasn't the Access Bowl rep.

Are you talking about the CFP poll or the AP? Cuz so far, THIS CFP commission has fed us a bowl of shite and called it chocolate ice cream.

Yes, the College football playoff ranking, the one that counts. The AAC is the only non power conference to not only have multiple teams ranked at the same time, but finish the year ranked. The final poll had 0 in 2014, 3 in 2015, and 2 in 2016. A trend is beginning to emerge that conference games are actually valued. There used to be a common message board belief that if Boise was anywhere close they'd get it because of history, respect.... I don't think that's the case anymore, nor is the AAC one of the conferences that must be undefeated in order to be ranked. My post was in response to those who say only one team will be ranked at the end of the year just because... The results don't support that. It's a process, but with the exception of the first year, the committee has shown a willingness to rank multiple AAC teams even in the face of weak OOC records. Are they going to be ranked high enough for playoff consideration? Uh, no, but if the trend holds, it will become increasingly more difficult for other conferences to be in serious Access Bowl contention unless undefeated.

(11-10-2017 07:18 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Yes, the College football playoff ranking, the one that counts. The AAC is the only non power conference to not only have multiple teams ranked at the same time, but finish the year ranked. The final poll had 0 in 2014, 3 in 2015, and 2 in 2016. A trend is beginning to emerge that conference games are actually valued. There used to be a common message board belief that if Boise was anywhere close they'd get it because of history, respect.... I don't think that's the case anymore, nor is the AAC one of the conferences that must be undefeated in order to be ranked. My post was in response to those who say only one team will be ranked at the end of the year just because... The results don't support that. It's a process, but with the exception of the first year, the committee has shown a willingness to rank multiple AAC teams even in the face of weak OOC records. Are they going to be ranked high enough for playoff consideration? Uh, no, but if the trend holds, it will become increasingly more difficult for other conferences to be in serious Access Bowl contention unless undefeated.

Exactly