(12-30-2018 08:39 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Here are the results of top teams in the last 5 years (40 wins or more).

Boise State 52-15
Appalachian State 48-16
Toledo 46-19
Memphis 46-20
Houston 45-20
San Diego State 46-21
Marshall 43-22
La Tech 42-25
UCF 40-23*
South Florida 40-23
Western Michigan 40-23
Temple 41-25
Ohio 40-25
WKU 40-26
NIU 40-27

Here's the coaching for that list...MAC seems to hold on to their coaches longer

Boise State 52-15 1 coach
Appalachian State 48-16 1 coach
Toledo 46-19 2 coaches 4years and 1 year
Memphis 46-20 2 coaches 2, years, 3 years
Houston 45-20 3 coaches, 1 year, 2 years, 2 years
San Diego State 46-21 1 coach
Marshall 43-22 1 coach
La Tech 42-25 1 coach
UCF 40-23* 3 coaches, 2 years, 2 years, 1 year
South Florida 40-23 2 coaches , 2 years, 3 years
Western Michigan 40-23 2 coaches 3years and 2years
Temple 41-25 2 coaches 3 years, 2 years
Ohio 40-25 1 coach
WKU 40-26 2 coaches , 3 years, 2 years (Western is heading into 5th coach in 7 seasons)
NIU 40-27 1 coach

Some of you guys sound like conspiracy nuts. My only interest in using a three year rolling average was to try and keep the results based on more current records. If I would have selected to use a four year average, I thought it would be less accurate. As it is Air Force managed to land in the top 25, despite having back to back losing seasons. I felt adding a fourth season, would water down the results, keeping the data from reflecting current sustained success. Plus, if I would have used four seasons, there are people out there that would have argued for five seasons. There will always be some that would want to drag it our further, and then the ranking would no longer serve its purpose.

I will update the rankings again next year. I expect Marshall to land in the rankings next season, as Air Force's 10-3 2016 season drops off, and Marshall loses their 2016 3-9 season too.

(12-30-2018 08:36 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  According to those numbers Marshall should be tied for 25th. That's with one of our worst seasons since moving up to FBS when we went 3-9 in 2016.

In this system all ties are broken. Although Marshall and Utah State both had identical 20-18 records over the 3 year span, Utah State finished 2018 11-2, while Marshall had a 9-4 record. If the rankings were extended, Marshall would hold the #26 spot.

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

(12-30-2018 08:03 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Interesting Joe. I know a lot of work went into this, good job!

But like others said, why three years? I know Marshall went 10-3 if you go back four years.

I don’t want to dismiss your findings though, they have value!

Thanks. I tried to create an unbiased system to identified the better programs and where they are trending. It is not perfect, but it is the best I could do.

I find it interesting that 71% of C-USA football programs have winning records over the 3 year cycle. That is by far the best among the G5. I have no idea why MacLeod isn't promoting that fact.

(12-30-2018 08:39 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Here are the results of top teams in the last 5 years (40 wins or more).

Boise State 52-15
Appalachian State 48-16
Toledo 46-19
Memphis 46-20
Houston 45-20
San Diego State 46-21
Marshall 43-22
La Tech 42-25
UCF 40-23*
South Florida 40-23
Western Michigan 40-23
Temple 41-25
Ohio 40-25
WKU 40-26
NIU 40-27

Thats makes more sense

Using the time CUSA formed 2013 is more accurate, 3 years is just arbitrary and doesnt mean much

3 teams over 40 wins

Marshall
Tech
WKU

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

(12-30-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:03 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Interesting Joe. I know a lot of work went into this, good job!

But like others said, why three years? I know Marshall went 10-3 if you go back four years.

I don’t want to dismiss your findings though, they have value!

Thanks. I tried to create an unbiased system to identified the better programs and where they are trending. It is not perfect, but it is the best I could do.

I find it interesting that 71% of C-USA football programs have winning records over the 3 year cycle. That is by far the best among the G5. I have no idea why MacLeod isn't promoting that fact.

If you are only concern with "the better programs" why is winning% better than conference championships? Or SOS, Middle played the 73rd toughest schedule this season compared to UNT's 129th out of 130....

you dont think that plays into wins or losses?

Lets look at what you used as tie breakers:
Tie-breakers
1. Better 2018 record
2. Head to head winner
3. Bowl winner
4. P5 wins
5. Higher rated offense

What does the 2018 better record mean more than 2016 or 2017?
why does p5 win in 2018 mean more than 2016 or 2017?
Why does the higher rated offense in 2018 mean more than 2016 or 2017?

Seems to me things like winning a division or conference championship would be a sign of "better program" than any of the 5 you listed and especially the 3 I pointed out.

Seems to me you made up anything that UNT was stronger in this season. I'm shocked you didn't list higher paid head coach as 6th

I will add, it's your thread so I guess you get to make up any reasons for it, you like. But I think its very clear you thought about which would benefit UNT in doing so.

(12-30-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:03 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Interesting Joe. I know a lot of work went into this, good job!

But like others said, why three years? I know Marshall went 10-3 if you go back four years.

I don’t want to dismiss your findings though, they have value!

Thanks. I tried to create an unbiased system to identified the better programs and where they are trending. It is not perfect, but it is the best I could do.

I find it interesting that 71% of C-USA football programs have winning records over the 3 year cycle. That is by far the best among the G5. I have no idea why MacLeod isn't promoting that fact.

Because it’s Judy.

Let’s me and you team up, I bet we could run things much better man!

(12-30-2018 10:07 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:03 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Interesting Joe. I know a lot of work went into this, good job!

But like others said, why three years? I know Marshall went 10-3 if you go back four years.

I don’t want to dismiss your findings though, they have value!

Thanks. I tried to create an unbiased system to identified the better programs and where they are trending. It is not perfect, but it is the best I could do.

I find it interesting that 71% of C-USA football programs have winning records over the 3 year cycle. That is by far the best among the G5. I have no idea why MacLeod isn't promoting that fact.

If you are only concern with "the better programs" why is winning% better than conference championships? Or SOS, Middle played the 73rd toughest schedule this season compared to UNT's 129th out of 130....

you dont think that plays into wins or losses?

Lets look at what you used as tie breakers:
Tie-breakers
1. Better 2018 record
2. Head to head winner
3. Bowl winner
4. P5 wins
5. Higher rated offense

What does the 2018 better record mean more than 2016 or 2017?
why does p5 wins make a difference?
Why does the higher rated offense?

Seems to me things like winning a division or conference championship would be a sign of "better program" than any of the 5 you listed and especially the 3 I pointed out.

Seems to me you made up anything that UNT was stronger in this season. I'm shocked you didn't list higher paid head coach as 6th

The 2018 record is more current that is why it was chosen over the 2017 or 2016 seasons.

Personally, I think we all put a premium on P5 wins.

If two teams with identical three records didn't face each other, plus both either won or lost their bowl, and either beat or didn't beat a P5 program, I needed something to break the tie. Highest scoring offense just seemed like an easy solution. If you want to create a ranking that places a larger emphasis on divisional titles then be my guest.

For the record, no conference champion was harmed in the creation of my poll.

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

I disagree. In a 5 year average the WKU program would look like a juggernaut. WKU is currently facing back to back losing seasons. A 5 year rolling average would misrepresent their program's actual strength.

It is a fine line between too few seasons and too many seasons. I feel three seasons helps keep the data relevant and more accurate.

(12-30-2018 10:09 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:03 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Interesting Joe. I know a lot of work went into this, good job!

But like others said, why three years? I know Marshall went 10-3 if you go back four years.

I don’t want to dismiss your findings though, they have value!

Thanks. I tried to create an unbiased system to identified the better programs and where they are trending. It is not perfect, but it is the best I could do.

I find it interesting that 71% of C-USA football programs have winning records over the 3 year cycle. That is by far the best among the G5. I have no idea why MacLeod isn't promoting that fact.

Because it’s Judy.

Let’s me and you team up, I bet we could run things much better man!

Totally agree.

(12-30-2018 10:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

I disagree. In a 5 year average the WKU program would look like a juggernaut. WKU is currently facing back to back losing seasons. A 5 year rolling average would misrepresent their program's actual strength.

It is a fine line between too few season and too many seasons. I feel three seasons helps keep the data relevant and more accurate.

Great point.

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Using the time CUSA formed 2013 is more accurate, 3 years is just arbitrary and doesnt mean much

3 teams over 40 wins

Marshall
Tech
WKU

2013 is great for looking at the historical records, but doesn't work for accessing the strength of programs within C-USA. It is just too broad of a window, and some data loses relevance over that span of time. Lets face it, UAB has died and been resurrected since 2013. If you read my posts, 3 years was not arbitrary.

(12-30-2018 08:39 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Here are the results of top teams in the last 5 years (40 wins or more).

Boise State 52-15
Appalachian State 48-16
Toledo 46-19
Memphis 46-20
Houston 45-20
San Diego State 46-21
Marshall 43-22
La Tech 42-25
UCF 40-23*
South Florida 40-23
Western Michigan 40-23
Temple 41-25
Ohio 40-25
WKU 40-26
NIU 40-27

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

Agreed.

Joe, it makes a lot more sense now that you explained it. Change the name of the title and to something that describes the idea better. I agree, its a great way to see how programs are trending but I also agree that the 5 year is better to describe "program strength."

(12-30-2018 10:43 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:39 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Here are the results of top teams in the last 5 years (40 wins or more).

Boise State 52-15
Appalachian State 48-16
Toledo 46-19
Memphis 46-20
Houston 45-20
San Diego State 46-21
Marshall 43-22
La Tech 42-25
UCF 40-23*
South Florida 40-23
Western Michigan 40-23
Temple 41-25
Ohio 40-25
WKU 40-26
NIU 40-27

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

Agreed.

Joe, it makes a lot more sense now that you explained it. Change the name of the title and to something that describes the idea better. I agree, its a great way to see how programs are trending but I also agree that the 5 year is better to describe "program strength."

Post #32 explains my reasoning for the 3 year model over the 5 year.

I’ll take Charlotte’s situation going forward over a whole lot of programs based purely on Lambert and Rose not being there.

(12-30-2018 10:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

I disagree. In a 5 year average the WKU program would look like a juggernaut. WKU is currently facing back to back losing seasons. A 5 year rolling average would misrepresent their program's actual strength.

It is a fine line between too few seasons and too many seasons. I feel three seasons helps keep the data relevant and more accurate.

As a impartial party, I see Fine gone and UNT doesn’t scare me the way it did in 18. Same with Stocksdale.

(12-30-2018 10:43 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 08:39 PM)rileylives Wrote:  Here are the results of top teams in the last 5 years (40 wins or more).

Boise State 52-15
Appalachian State 48-16
Toledo 46-19
Memphis 46-20
Houston 45-20
San Diego State 46-21
Marshall 43-22
La Tech 42-25
UCF 40-23*
South Florida 40-23
Western Michigan 40-23
Temple 41-25
Ohio 40-25
WKU 40-26
NIU 40-27

(12-30-2018 10:05 PM)rileylives Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 09:50 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 07:49 PM)banker Wrote:  He's right though. The three year, arbitrary time frame was chosen only because it put UNT in the best possible light.

No, a two year time frame would have put North Texas in the best possible light. I have explained why I chose the three year rolling cycle.

Well then Joe, to be fair, a three year list would probably be best described as a top 25 rolling average of recent successful individual seasons.

A 5 year list most resembles a list of program strength. (How you handle turnover and such).

They don’t have to be at odds. 3 years probably more accurately shows your recent success, where as a 5 year list holds more weight in measuring the overall program.

So I would argue calling your list “Program Strength Rankings” would be better suited under the 5 year mark.

Agreed.

Joe, it makes a lot more sense now that you explained it. Change the name of the title and to something that describes the idea better. I agree, its a great way to see how programs are trending but I also agree that the 5 year is better to describe "program strength."

How about G5 Top 25 Trending Program Strength?

Either way, I get where you are coming from Joe. Thanks for the effort! Even if you don’t change a thing, your points are taken.

This thread is a great example of how people can disagree, but come together and ultimately work together. I would like to see more of that in general, not just on our humble message board, but in life.