(05-27-2016 09:25 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  False again, So how many CUSA teams were ranked in the top 40? Because the AAC was 1-22 versus top 40 and the CUSA was 3-32 versus top 40. Sorry the facts are CUSA played " a dramatically harder OOC" in 2014 and had higher winning percentage, thats why CUSA was rated higher in all the polls. What you said isn't remotely true

these are games verse yourself...your top 40 games were conference games versus marshall and la tech.. (note that half the computers dont rate compute FCS games win or lose and la tech had lost to an fcs, both colley and massey dont compute)

our top teams lost close games to elite teams, and probably wherent ranked in the top 40

again the ranking you posted are MEANINGLESS to this conversation... post OOC sos rankings, not sos rankings that include conference play (which is boosted by OOC results)

you are posting the most biased/misleading stats trying to prove a point..im sorry to inform you that im decent at understanding analytics to see right through it

Elite teams that weren't in the Top 40 but somehow AAC had a dramatically harder schedule lies lies and more lies.

As far as posting the most biased stat, you have mention Marshall every time. You know why? because everyone knows Marshall is known to schedule a weak OOC. So you pick the 1 team out of 13 that is known to schedule a weak OOC.
But what you failed acknowledge is all the other CUSA teams that played #4 Oklahoma, #1 Alabama, #5 Auburn and so on and so on. Once again your assertion that AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule proved blatantly false

do you understand basic analytic?? only 10-14 of our non conference were elite games..even less for c-usa..that fits within the scope of the analytics you posted

i cant tell if you are just trolling or for some reason really just cant understand basic analytics

ill put this as simple as i can with an analogy..
---there are 2 6-team conferences.
1) the first conference plays 4 elite teams in OOC and lost all of them, because they didnt win a game none of the teams where in the top 40..(zero wins in the top 40, only played 4 top 40 games)
2) the second conference had 1 team play an above average team (not top 40) and the others played scrubs in OOC, and won all the games. the team with the above average win is now a top 40 team, and they are upset once in conference play ..(they now have 1 win in the top 40 and played 5 top 40 games)

according to your very remedial interpretation of the stats you posted, you think that conference #2 played the tougher out of conference slate....
i really dont get how you are trying to pass of those stats as legit

again why not just use stats that solely rank OOC, thats how you tell which conference really played the tougher slate..

(05-26-2016 08:57 PM)winston70 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:42 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 04:55 PM)BKTopper Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 04:25 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 04:12 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:   Nice try
In 2014 AAC was already behind even before the bowls. CUSA was 3-1 against the ACC and the AAC had a pathetic 16-28 ooc record that year while CUSA was 24-28.

BTW the AAC had very poor bowl showing last year must be a trend

^ I'm out and about right now, but will post the article when I get back home. IIRC, it was from a CUSA school.

ETA: Found it, but I'm on my phone so hope it formats correctly.

http://www.herdzone.com/sports/m-footbl/...15aaa.html

Quote:Entering the bowls, C-USA ranked third, with a computer rank average of 85.923077. The American Athletic Conference was No. 2, at 85.106061 (lower number is better). However, those teams flip-flopped in the final rankings, after the AAC went 2-3 in bowls.

Sorry if I came off as a troll, not my intention whatsoever. TTT!

Definitely not trolling. Great stuff, but what if it were a smaller bowl sample size like what is happening, shedding undesirable bowls? Fewer bowls wouldn't hurt our standings would it?

I'm not good enough at math (or the formula for determining the rankings) to answer your question. Honestly, I think that would be a good topic for a beat writer to explore...most likely coming from CUSA/MAC//SBC as it doesn't appear as if the MWC or AAC cares too much as they don't typically report on such comparisons. And yes, insert arrogant emoji here.

One of the 2 conference doesn't have folks coming over telling us how much better they are - wonder which one that is?

not too be a smarta$$, but could it be the one that doesn't have an active csnbbs board?

(05-27-2016 09:39 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:31 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 04:19 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:17 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:36 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  There is a press conference today (not streamed or televised) for additional details for the bowl this year. Waiting to hear info on it.

The Website is stating the date is Dec. 30, 2016. So that info is known.

I bet CUSA is the back-up this year as SB was last year. Not sure but I think it could alternate between CUSA and SB each year.

Nope, Just announced. SBC is primary partner on 4 year deal through 2019. CUSA is not part of the contract.

Excellent, we won't to slum with the SBC in another bowl. It's a lose lose for CUSA. As far as perception nothing is gain from beating SBC even if the team is the undefeated Champs like Ark State.

CUSA beat their undefeated Champ convincingly in a bowl and there are still delusional App and Ga S fans that still think they would run through CUSA

Somehow...despite the fact that I was not trolling, you managed to start a ridiculous argument to tie up 3 more pages. Good Work!

It wouldn't be that way if the SBC fans didn't show up, because all the CUSA fans know it's true. Nothing is gain from playing the Sunbelt in another bowl

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. But congrats, you got your SBC Shot in. Good for you, I'm sure you feel accomplished now.

(05-27-2016 10:37 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 09:25 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  False again, So how many CUSA teams were ranked in the top 40? Because the AAC was 1-22 versus top 40 and the CUSA was 3-32 versus top 40. Sorry the facts are CUSA played " a dramatically harder OOC" in 2014 and had higher winning percentage, thats why CUSA was rated higher in all the polls. What you said isn't remotely true

these are games verse yourself...your top 40 games were conference games versus marshall and la tech.. (note that half the computers dont rate compute FCS games win or lose and la tech had lost to an fcs, both colley and massey dont compute)

our top teams lost close games to elite teams, and probably wherent ranked in the top 40

again the ranking you posted are MEANINGLESS to this conversation... post OOC sos rankings, not sos rankings that include conference play (which is boosted by OOC results)

you are posting the most biased/misleading stats trying to prove a point..im sorry to inform you that im decent at understanding analytics to see right through it

Elite teams that weren't in the Top 40 but somehow AAC had a dramatically harder schedule lies lies and more lies.

As far as posting the most biased stat, you have mention Marshall every time. You know why? because everyone knows Marshall is known to schedule a weak OOC. So you pick the 1 team out of 13 that is known to schedule a weak OOC.
But what you failed acknowledge is all the other CUSA teams that played #4 Oklahoma, #1 Alabama, #5 Auburn and so on and so on. Once again your assertion that AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule proved blatantly false

do you understand basic analytic?? only 10-14 of our non conference were elite games..even less for c-usa..that fits within the scope of the analytics you posted

i cant tell if you are just trolling or for some reason really just cant understand basic analytics

ill put this as simple as i can with an analogy..
---there are 2 6-team conferences.
1) the first conference plays 4 elite teams in OOC and lost all of them, because they didnt win a game none of the teams where in the top 40..(zero wins in the top 40, only played 4 top 40 games)
2) the second conference had 1 team play an above average team (not top 40) and the others played scrubs in OOC, and won all the games. the team with the above average win is now a top 40 team, and they are upset once in conference play ..(they now have 1 win in the top 40 and played 5 top 40 games)

according to your very remedial interpretation of the stats you posted, you think that conference #2 played the tougher out of conference slate....
i really dont get how you are trying to pass of those stats as legit

again why not just use stats that solely rank OOC, thats how you tell which conference really played the tougher slate..

Once again more false "analytics" from Pesik proven wrong. He insults, talks about trolling, tries to change his narrative and act like he is some sort of statistician.

The same would hold true for the AAC: Memphis, Cincy and UCF would be ranked in the top 40 also. So which is it?

Go peddle your "analytics" lies over on the AAC board

(05-27-2016 10:37 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 09:25 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:30 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  False again, So how many CUSA teams were ranked in the top 40? Because the AAC was 1-22 versus top 40 and the CUSA was 3-32 versus top 40. Sorry the facts are CUSA played " a dramatically harder OOC" in 2014 and had higher winning percentage, thats why CUSA was rated higher in all the polls. What you said isn't remotely true

these are games verse yourself...your top 40 games were conference games versus marshall and la tech.. (note that half the computers dont rate compute FCS games win or lose and la tech had lost to an fcs, both colley and massey dont compute)

our top teams lost close games to elite teams, and probably wherent ranked in the top 40

again the ranking you posted are MEANINGLESS to this conversation... post OOC sos rankings, not sos rankings that include conference play (which is boosted by OOC results)

you are posting the most biased/misleading stats trying to prove a point..im sorry to inform you that im decent at understanding analytics to see right through it

Elite teams that weren't in the Top 40 but somehow AAC had a dramatically harder schedule lies lies and more lies.

As far as posting the most biased stat, you have mention Marshall every time. You know why? because everyone knows Marshall is known to schedule a weak OOC. So you pick the 1 team out of 13 that is known to schedule a weak OOC.
But what you failed acknowledge is all the other CUSA teams that played #4 Oklahoma, #1 Alabama, #5 Auburn and so on and so on. Once again your assertion that AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule proved blatantly false

do you understand basic analytic?? only 10-14 of our non conference were elite games..even less for c-usa..that fits within the scope of the analytics you posted

i cant tell if you are just trolling or for some reason really just cant understand basic analytics

ill put this as simple as i can with an analogy..
---there are 2 6-team conferences.
1) the first conference plays 4 elite teams in OOC and lost all of them, because they didnt win a game none of the teams where in the top 40..(zero wins in the top 40, only played 4 top 40 games)
2) the second conference had 1 team play an above average team (not top 40) and the others played scrubs in OOC, and won all the games. the team with the above average win is now a top 40 team, and they are upset once in conference play ..(they now have 1 win in the top 40 and played 5 top 40 games)

according to your very remedial interpretation of the stats you posted, you think that conference #2 played the tougher out of conference slate....
i really dont get how you are trying to pass of those stats as legit

again why not just use stats that solely rank OOC, thats how you tell which conference really played the tougher slate..

Ok, I have issue with your trying to bash someone about their lack of "Basic Analytic Skills" while using the term "Elite" to quantify your own statistics. Before you continue to show your lack of "Analytical Skills" by basing your facts off of an un-verifiable opinion based term ("Elite" if you're not able to follow), why don't you quantify what is "Elite"? Remember to be used in "Factual" terms, it can't be based in opinion or assumption. So please, quantify these "Elite" differences you speak of and flame away.

okay, i think i have noticed the error in my approach to talking to you

i was trying to show you the obvious flaw in your interpretation of the stats you posted, hoping youd atleast change up how you approached the conversation and come from a different angle

clearly thats not working ..so i'm just going to post legitimate stats instead

here are non-Conference SOS rank for the AAC and C-USA for the 2014-15 season (this is purely non-conference) to decide who played the tougher slate



source: https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...2015-01-13

there was a huge gap in noncon strength of schedule between AAC and C-usa. FACT, the AAC played harder schedules

i originally even made a graph for SBnations non-con SOS rank, where the gap is even dramatically bigger but halfway i noticed it was based on preseason rank and thought you might complain about that. this one is based on how good the teams were at the end of the season

(05-27-2016 09:13 AM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 11:02 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:43 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:19 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  Has Troy ever beaten a ranked opponent? No.
Has Troy ever finished in the top 25? No..
Has anybody in the belt ever finished in the top 25? No
Troy's last winning season was when??? And you played conference juggernauts who?
You're a hoot, chief!

PS. Care to compare P5 victories? Didn't think so.

To correct you with the first answer, it's yes. We beat #17 Missouri in 2004 right after we handed your Herd an opening season loss.

Are you implying CUSA has juggernauts? Please say it ain't so. I'll give you WKU this past season, they were solid and deserving of a Top 25 ranking. But who else? Marshall??

Wait a minute, am I supposed to be impressed by Marshall's wins over the mighty Purdue, 7-6 Maryland, and 7-6 Louisville (that also lost to FIU that year) over the past decade? Give me break.

And again, you haven't done anything lately.. A P5 win is a P5 win.. You have one win over a ranked opponent 12 years ago and we have... How many? Ever beat a top 10? Nope. And again... The sbc has never had a ranked team at the end of the season... Period. NIU in 2014 would have wiped the floor with you.. Lol.. Can't hide from facts. Zero top 25 finishes. Zero. But whatever helps you sleep better. Keep losing to sub 500 sunbelt teams... But hey... Troy is awesome!

Oh Marshall. It's too funny how your fan base think their team is a juggernaut of college football. Quit living in the past. Despite your winning seasons lately, many people aren't impressed. You had the weakest schedule in FBS last season. Your opponents went 54-89. Troy's opponents went 76-73. With a cupcake schedule like that, Troy probably could've managed 10 wins. Play a challenging schedule for once instead of basking in wins over CUSA also-rans and the Purdue's of the world.

You are a real idiot. Despite our weak schedule, we still beat a top 25 team... Troy? 10 wins? you couldn't decide that if you were fcs...and you damn sure would have lost to Purdue by double digits... Now run along back to the belt board where you are at least somewhat significant.

(05-27-2016 12:32 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 09:13 AM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 11:02 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:43 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:19 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  Has Troy ever beaten a ranked opponent? No.
Has Troy ever finished in the top 25? No..
Has anybody in the belt ever finished in the top 25? No
Troy's last winning season was when??? And you played conference juggernauts who?
You're a hoot, chief!

PS. Care to compare P5 victories? Didn't think so.

To correct you with the first answer, it's yes. We beat #17 Missouri in 2004 right after we handed your Herd an opening season loss.

Are you implying CUSA has juggernauts? Please say it ain't so. I'll give you WKU this past season, they were solid and deserving of a Top 25 ranking. But who else? Marshall??

Wait a minute, am I supposed to be impressed by Marshall's wins over the mighty Purdue, 7-6 Maryland, and 7-6 Louisville (that also lost to FIU that year) over the past decade? Give me break.

And again, you haven't done anything lately.. A P5 win is a P5 win.. You have one win over a ranked opponent 12 years ago and we have... How many? Ever beat a top 10? Nope. And again... The sbc has never had a ranked team at the end of the season... Period. NIU in 2014 would have wiped the floor with you.. Lol.. Can't hide from facts. Zero top 25 finishes. Zero. But whatever helps you sleep better. Keep losing to sub 500 sunbelt teams... But hey... Troy is awesome!

Oh Marshall. It's too funny how your fan base think their team is a juggernaut of college football. Quit living in the past. Despite your winning seasons lately, many people aren't impressed. You had the weakest schedule in FBS last season. Your opponents went 54-89. Troy's opponents went 76-73. With a cupcake schedule like that, Troy probably could've managed 10 wins. Play a challenging schedule for once instead of basking in wins over CUSA also-rans and the Purdue's of the world.

You are a real idiot. Despite our weak schedule, we still beat a top 25 team... Troy? 10 wins? you couldn't decide that if you were fcs...and you damn sure would have lost to Purdue by double digits... Now run along back to the belt board where you are at least somewhat significant.

You getting upset? It's starting to seem that way. The truth hurts bud.

(05-27-2016 09:13 AM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  Oh Marshall. It's too funny how your fan base think their team is a juggernaut of college football. Quit living in the past. Despite your winning seasons lately, many people aren't impressed. You had the weakest schedule in FBS last season. Your opponents went 54-89. Troy's opponents went 76-73. With a cupcake schedule like that, Troy probably could've managed 10 wins. Play a challenging schedule for once instead of basking in wins over CUSA also-rans and the Purdue's of the world.

Just stop it.

Your best win was 4-8 Louisiana. You lost to 4-8 Idaho and 5-7 USA at home.

Marshall's schedule was weak and you may have performed better than you did against your own schedule by a game or two at most, 10 wins? Pass whatever you're smoking.

I'll give you Norfolk, Charlotte, UNT and Kent with a chance against FAU, FIU, and ODU all of whom were better than anyone you beat last year. So with three wins better than anyone you beat last year that still puts you at 7-5.

Seriously, just stop.

(05-27-2016 02:47 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 09:13 AM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  Oh Marshall. It's too funny how your fan base think their team is a juggernaut of college football. Quit living in the past. Despite your winning seasons lately, many people aren't impressed. You had the weakest schedule in FBS last season. Your opponents went 54-89. Troy's opponents went 76-73. With a cupcake schedule like that, Troy probably could've managed 10 wins. Play a challenging schedule for once instead of basking in wins over CUSA also-rans and the Purdue's of the world.

Just stop it.

Your best win was 4-8 Louisiana. You lost to 4-8 Idaho and 5-7 USA at home.

Marshall's schedule was weak and you may have performed better than you did against your own schedule by a game or two at most, 10 wins? Pass whatever you're smoking.

I'll give you Norfolk, Charlotte, UNT and Kent with a chance against FAU, FIU, and ODU all of whom were better than anyone you beat last year. So with three wins better than anyone you beat last year that still puts you at 7-5.

Seriously, just stop.

Oh man... please don't get me started on Central Tennessee State...

Great win vs Abilene Christian, Troy... Oh. Wait... PiKapp, the butthurt runs deep with this one...

February through November: "This G5/P5 stuff is a pile of crap destroying college football."

December and January: "Who gives a rat's a** about playing a bowl vs. some other lame G5 team?"

You people are funny.

(05-27-2016 12:10 PM)pesik Wrote:  okay, i think i have noticed the error in my approach to talking to you

i was trying to show you the obvious flaw in your interpretation of the stats you posted, hoping youd atleast change up how you approached the conversation and come from a different angle

clearly thats not working ..so i'm just going to post legitimate stats instead

here are non-Conference SOS rank for the AAC and C-USA for the 2014-15 season (this is purely non-conference) to decide who played the tougher slate



source: https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...2015-01-13

there was a huge gap in noncon strength of schedule between AAC and C-usa. FACT, the AAC played harder schedules

i originally even made a graph for SBnations non-con SOS rank, where the gap is even dramatically bigger but halfway i noticed it was based on preseason rank and thought you might complain about that. this one is based on how good the teams were at the end of the season

Surely with your supreme knowledge of "Analytics" you understand the extreme inherit bias of SOS. Many articles have been written about this and how SOS is opinion based and will have extreme bias toward P5 conferences. Each SOS is different and includes different bias. Such as the Colley bias free SOS listed below which has the CUSA with overall 93.08 SOS and AAC with 96 SOS:




What you speak is far from a fact and surely with your supreme knowledge of "analytics and stats" that you keep on going on about, you realize that.


How about eliminate the bias and just list these "elite" teams you speak of and the final year end rankings. Then Whoever can choose to believe you or not. Here is a side by side comparison of top 50 teams played in OOC. Pesik says AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule and something he says is fact:


Once again, as you can see, Pesik assertion that the AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule is proven false and it is far from fact as he suggest.

Nothing shows the flaws of the SOS more than the Southern Miss ranking. USM had a OOC of #112 according to the flawed SOS Pesik posted but yet USM played #3 Alabama and #11 Miss State. While Memphis played #10 UCLA and #17 Ole Miss and had a OOC of #18. You decide

Side note, Karl Benson said today that CUSA voluntarily chose to back out of the Arizona Bowl.

(05-28-2016 01:44 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Side note, Karl Benson said today that CUSA voluntarily chose to back out of the Arizona Bowl.

Not surprised. That bowl was just going to be in the way of us being able to fill a better bowl on a secondary agreement.

(05-27-2016 11:45 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Surely with your supreme knowledge of "Analytics" you understand the extreme inherit bias of SOS. Many articles have been written about this and how SOS is opinion based and will have extreme bias toward P5 conferences. Each SOS is different and includes different bias. Such as the Colley bias free SOS listed below which has the CUSA with overall 93.08 SOS and AAC with 96 SOS:




What you speak is far from a fact and surely with your supreme knowledge of "analytics and stats" that you keep on going on about, you realize that.


How about eliminate the bias and just list these "elite" teams you speak of and the final year end rankings. Then Whoever can choose to believe you or not. Here is a side by side comparison of top 50 teams played in OOC. Pesik says AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule and something he says is fact:


Once again, as you can see, Pesik assertion that the AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule is proven false and it is far from fact as he suggest.

but the sos rankings you keep posting are full schedule SOS..

im all for subjectiveness but post fair stats...

everyone in c-usa played a top 10/15 team, marshall (where the computers rated them, which was built of a weak schedule)

show me JUST 1 purely non-conference sos that said c-usa played a harder schedule..ive looked at 4 so far all with a HUGE gap between the AAC and C-usa...you can call bias in 1 poll but all of them are saying the same thing..the AAC played harder schedules

and you want to call out my stats but you listed texas as a top 50 team who was only 6-7, but not list byu who had a dramatically better record..oh and the destroyed Texas in a 1 sided blowout (byu played 4 AAC teams)..how is 6-7 nebraska #28?

back to the main point of this whole thing, c-usa benefited of playing weak teams in noncon. you guys didn't beat a single p5 in the regular season, i can name 4-6 wins in the AAC ooc that year that would trump any in C-usa.

show me JUST ONE noncon sos that ranked C-usa higher..JUST 1!!! (non conference only, post another full conference sos and ill know you have nothing)...you are either in denial, trolling or so deep into your c-usa homer-ism anything diverting from that will be denied..if you want to prove me wrong post legitimate information, no more biased stats

(05-28-2016 08:47 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-27-2016 11:45 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Surely with your supreme knowledge of "Analytics" you understand the extreme inherit bias of SOS. Many articles have been written about this and how SOS is opinion based and will have extreme bias toward P5 conferences. Each SOS is different and includes different bias. Such as the Colley bias free SOS listed below which has the CUSA with overall 93.08 SOS and AAC with 96 SOS:




What you speak is far from a fact and surely with your supreme knowledge of "analytics and stats" that you keep on going on about, you realize that.


How about eliminate the bias and just list these "elite" teams you speak of and the final year end rankings. Then Whoever can choose to believe you or not. Here is a side by side comparison of top 50 teams played in OOC. Pesik says AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule and something he says is fact:


Once again, as you can see, Pesik assertion that the AAC played a dramatically harder OOC schedule is proven false and it is far from fact as he suggest.

but the sos rankings you keep posting are full schedule SOS..

im all for subjectiveness but post fair stats...

everyone in c-usa played a top 10/15 team, marshall (where the computers rated them, which was built of a weak schedule)

show me JUST 1 purely non-conference sos that said c-usa played a harder schedule..ive looked at 4 so far all with a HUGE gap between the AAC and C-usa...you can call bias in 1 poll but all of them are saying the same thing..the AAC played harder schedules

and you want to call out my stats but you listed texas as a top 50 team who was only 6-7, but not list byu who had a dramatically better record..oh and the destroyed Texas in a 1 sided blowout (byu played 4 AAC teams)..how is 6-7 nebraska #28?

back to the main point of this whole thing, c-usa benefited of playing weak teams in noncon. you guys didn't beat a single p5 in the regular season, i can name 4-6 wins in the AAC ooc that year that would trump any in C-usa.

show me JUST ONE noncon sos that ranked C-usa higher..JUST 1!!! (non conference only, post another full conference sos and ill know you have nothing)...you are either in denial, trolling or so deep into your c-usa homer-ism anything diverting from that will be denied..if you want to prove me wrong post legitimate information, no more biased stats

So a side by side comparison of Top 50 non-conference teams played is a biased stat. Okay. I got nothing for you because there is nothing more unbiased and unfiltered than that. BTW Nebraska was 9-4 and #28. BYU was 8-5 and #53 go ahead and include them it won't make a difference in your false assertion.


Surely someone with your "analytical" prowess knows the inherit bias of SOS. USM played #3 Alabama and #11 Miss State and was ranked #112 according to your SOS Memphis played #10 UCLA and #17 Ole Miss and was ranked #18 according to your SOS.

Your false assertion of that the AAC played a "dramatically harder" non-conference and that's why CUSA was ranked higher has been proven to be lie. Nothing shows that more than the unbiased and unfiltered side by side list of non-conference games. Good luck with your great analytical mind, I'm out on this one

The only person on this board who's said anything that makes any sense is whoever said "ultimately there's no difference between these leagues" back on page 3 or 4.

I've never heard a significant outcry by App or Georgia Southern fans saying either team would come in and run CUSA (maybe a little from Arkansas St fans, but they have a right...they've won a lot of SBC titles). Is the SBC marginally weaker overall? Maybe. Does that fact help newly elevated programs like App and GS compete at a high level? Of course. Would either team have had the same success moving directly into CUSA? Jury's out. Marshall, WKU, LA Tech, and MTSU would all still be a mountain of a challenge.

Don't get mad at AAC or Sunbelt fans for coming over here and posting on "your board" as if that's not exactly what you wanted (or exactly the point of message boards) when you said "let them have it, this bowl is beneath us anyway". He who has to insult to win an argument has already lost by showing his weakness.

twitter.com/DieselOnRadio

(05-27-2016 09:50 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:03 PM)wh49er Wrote:  Would anyone other fanbase, other than UTEP, actually travel to this one?

Nope.. I still think the only reason it was agreed to last year was specifically for UTEP.

Well, at least one fan wouldn't go to Arizona. Me. I've been to Arizona for games in DECEMBER and it's miserable. Too hot even for us El Pasoans. They can give it to the SBC as far as I care. I'd stay home anyway. If it was played in an air-conditioned stadium where the Cardinals play I'd be the first to buy a ticket.