(10-16-2019 02:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:45 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 01:55 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  How much of Cincy's schedule is Ohio State? Probably something significant.

As for TAMU, they were a lot more competitive in all three of their tough games than Cincy was in their one tough game.

Seriously, if Cincy were playing TAMU next week and you had to bet straight up, would you pick Cincy? Really?

Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.

TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.

Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.

What? Your opinion that Cincy's SOS wouldn't change much if we subtracted out Ohio State, well, we don't know that, it's an opinion: And an important one, because your whole response seems to be based on a faulty assumption, namely that I was including Ohio State when I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule. Obviously I wasn't, as I had already referred to Ohio State as a very strong team.

So to be clear: When I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule, i was referring to sans Ohio State. And i was referring to it that way in comparison to TAMU's schedule. That should have been obvious, sorry if it wasn't. That was my whole point: Cincy is benefiting from having played games vs 5 winnable opponents whereas TAMU has only played 3. The other three have been monsters.

And as I noted, TAMU wasn't whacked by any of their monsters nearly as bad as Cincy was by their one monster.

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

Your original statement is that UC has played a soft schedule, and that has allowed them to rack up wins. Except, that isn't true as I already pointed out. If you subtract out OSU from UC's schedule, then you'd have to do something similar with these other 'P5' (or G5!) teams you mentioned in order to have a legitimate comparison. The fact that UC didn't play an FCS team and had two of the decently rated AAC teams early makes their schedule look solid so far, but it also doesn't jive with your argument just based on schedule. TAMU is a pretty big outlier as far as schedules go so far because it is so bipolar between great teams and awful teams. I think you'd struggle to find another comparison.

The comparison to TAMU specifically came later, and now you are clutching onto that pearl while the rest of your argument falls apart, as it was one small part of the original point you were trying to make. I feel like this is your MO when someone actually presents data that doesn't work with your argument. Single out one small part that was correct and hold on for dear life.

Your entire argument boils down to 'UC got killed by OSU', so they suck. Back to opinions, I think that proves UC isn't at all a Top 10 type team, but that's all it proves considering how the season has gone thus far.

You are really digging a deep hole. First, I never said that because UC got killed by OSU that UC sucks. Not once. FWIW, I don't think Cincy sucks, I think they are about a #30 - #35 type team, and that is far from sucking.

Second, my original statement about UC's soft schedule, the one you bolded, contained in the very same sentence the reference to TAMU.

I think what happened was, you are a Bearcat fan, the phrase about Cincy's schedule raised your ire, so you selectively latched on to that without appreciating the context. The irascible Bearcat in you doesn't want to let go, even after I acknowledged that I should have been clear that when I referred to Cincy's soft schedule, I was thinking sans Ohio State.

I don't think that is generally your MO, but it appears to have happened here.

And no, that is not a 'small part' of my argument, it is the only argument i was making, LOL. What else was i saying, but that Cincy was ranked and TAMU wasn't because TAMU played more monster teams than Cincy?

You have no pearls to clutch on to, just a Bearcat fan's defensiveness. So I'll say it again for you:

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

First, you absolutely have changed the discussion, as the UC quip was not in response to any comparison, but about their strength of record. Again, the data shows this was wrong in just about every way. Your welcome to ignore it, but it exists. Sorry it doesn’t help you this time.

Second, You’ve made the same argument in reverse for why the OSU game will hurt UCs perception. You’ve said that because UC already had a shot vs a top level team, it will hurt them in getting the NY6 spot. I think this is a reasonable argument. BUT, when making the same argument for TAMU being ranked, you’ve ignored the fact they’ve had 3 shots at top level teams and haven’t played very well in any of them. You aren’t applying the same logic to very similar situations.

Whatever bias I have as a UC fan, exists in spades for you any time an AAC school comes up in my limited visits to this board.

Your main method of arguing consists of inconsistent logic, only allowing data in a discussion when it agrees with you, and based on the above, going with the classic ‘I’m rubber, your glue’ argument.

I truly don’t know why I bother.

(10-16-2019 10:12 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:45 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 01:55 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  Ah, so we can put all the judgement of UC's team quality on their performance in the OSU game, but when it comes to evaluating their schedule, that game can be dismissed? I don't have the ability to see what their SOS would be without the OSU game, but it couldn't drop so far to make the argument that they loaded up on a soft schedule correct.

TAMU would likely be favored by a point or two on a neutral field based on the predictive rankings I've seen. But you are inventing an argument that I wasn't making. It isn't 'Who is better, UC or TAMU?' It was that you were excusing the performance of TAMU in their elite games while holding UC's against them. I was pointing out your selective reasoning and using the data to do it.

Again, you are welcome to have your opinion, but the data we have says your argument that UC has an inflated record based on their schedule isn't backed up.

What? Your opinion that Cincy's SOS wouldn't change much if we subtracted out Ohio State, well, we don't know that, it's an opinion: And an important one, because your whole response seems to be based on a faulty assumption, namely that I was including Ohio State when I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule. Obviously I wasn't, as I had already referred to Ohio State as a very strong team.

So to be clear: When I referred to Cincy playing a soft schedule, i was referring to sans Ohio State. And i was referring to it that way in comparison to TAMU's schedule. That should have been obvious, sorry if it wasn't. That was my whole point: Cincy is benefiting from having played games vs 5 winnable opponents whereas TAMU has only played 3. The other three have been monsters.

And as I noted, TAMU wasn't whacked by any of their monsters nearly as bad as Cincy was by their one monster.

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

Your original statement is that UC has played a soft schedule, and that has allowed them to rack up wins. Except, that isn't true as I already pointed out. If you subtract out OSU from UC's schedule, then you'd have to do something similar with these other 'P5' (or G5!) teams you mentioned in order to have a legitimate comparison. The fact that UC didn't play an FCS team and had two of the decently rated AAC teams early makes their schedule look solid so far, but it also doesn't jive with your argument just based on schedule. TAMU is a pretty big outlier as far as schedules go so far because it is so bipolar between great teams and awful teams. I think you'd struggle to find another comparison.

The comparison to TAMU specifically came later, and now you are clutching onto that pearl while the rest of your argument falls apart, as it was one small part of the original point you were trying to make. I feel like this is your MO when someone actually presents data that doesn't work with your argument. Single out one small part that was correct and hold on for dear life.

Your entire argument boils down to 'UC got killed by OSU', so they suck. Back to opinions, I think that proves UC isn't at all a Top 10 type team, but that's all it proves considering how the season has gone thus far.

You are really digging a deep hole. First, I never said that because UC got killed by OSU that UC sucks. Not once. FWIW, I don't think Cincy sucks, I think they are about a #30 - #35 type team, and that is far from sucking.

Second, my original statement about UC's soft schedule, the one you bolded, contained in the very same sentence the reference to TAMU.

I think what happened was, you are a Bearcat fan, the phrase about Cincy's schedule raised your ire, so you selectively latched on to that without appreciating the context. The irascible Bearcat in you doesn't want to let go, even after I acknowledged that I should have been clear that when I referred to Cincy's soft schedule, I was thinking sans Ohio State.

I don't think that is generally your MO, but it appears to have happened here.

And no, that is not a 'small part' of my argument, it is the only argument i was making, LOL. What else was i saying, but that Cincy was ranked and TAMU wasn't because TAMU played more monster teams than Cincy?

You have no pearls to clutch on to, just a Bearcat fan's defensiveness. So I'll say it again for you:

I think your admission that TAMU would be favored over Cincy makes my point: TAMU is at least as good as Cincy, but Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not because of the nature of their schedules - TAMU having played more top teams. There's little chance those 'models' you cite would predict that unless my proposition - that Cincy's record is inflated by a soft schedule compared to TAMU isn't correct.

First, you absolutely have changed the discussion, as the UC quip was not in response to any comparison, but about their strength of record. Again, the data shows this was wrong in just about every way. Your welcome to ignore it, but it exists. Sorry it doesn’t help you this time.

Second, You’ve made the same argument in reverse for why the OSU game will hurt UCs perception. You’ve said that because UC already had a shot vs a top level team, it will hurt them in getting the NY6 spot. I think this is a reasonable argument. BUT, when making the same argument for TAMU being ranked, you’ve ignored the fact they’ve had 3 shots at top level teams and haven’t played very well in any of them. You aren’t applying the same logic to very similar situations.

Whatever bias I have as a UC fan, exists in spades for you any time an AAC school comes up in my limited visits to this board.

Your main method of arguing consists of inconsistent logic, only allowing data in a discussion when it agrees with you, and based on the above, going with the classic ‘I’m rubber, your glue’ argument.

I truly don’t know why I bother.

I'd bet you "bother" because as an irascible Bearcat fan, you can't help yourself despite having no pearls to clutch at.

Evidence of that is your absurd claim that my argument is that because OS blew out Cincy, that Cincy sucks. Some things in this discussion are subject to shadings and interpretations, but nobody with a brain could honestly say I said or was implying that.

Second, anyone reading my original statement about UC's schedule can see that it was not made in a vacuum, but rather was obviously in the context of a comparison I was making with TAMU to illustrate a point about G5/P5 SOS bias. Your claim that this was a small part of my big argument is absurd, as there clearly was no other argument I was making, that was it.

Finally, I have never argued that TAMU should be ranked. I've said that the "reason Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not is ...". That doesn't necessarily mean I think TAMU should be ranked. Again, your bias makes you jump to a conclusion. The point was that Cincy is ranked and TAMU is not, meaning that Cincy is more highly-regarded by the pollsters right now. To me, Cincy and TAMU should be regarded about the same by the pollsters. Whether that means both should be ranked, or not, is a different issue. To me, they are borderline cases. Put them in at 24/25 and I'm fine with that. But if you wanted to leave them both out, at around 29/30, I'd be fine with that too. Point is, right now, the AP has Cincy 21 and TAMU 34 (via others receiving votes), and IMO that gap is not justified, it's a product of schedule bias working for the G5 team.

Finally finally, there is no 'selective logic' here, because all along I have distinguished TAMU and Cincy's performance against their tough teams. To me, TAMU gave credible showings in defeat against all three monster opponents, whereas Cincy got wacked. You may disagree with me about that, think that either Cincy didn't get wacked or TAMU did get wacked, but I believe in that distinction, so that is a basis for distinguishing their performance vs top teams and drawing inferences from that.

I think it's clear by your statement that I made a 'quip' about Cincy's schedule that I was right in my assessment of your MO here - your Bearcat bias caused you to latch on to a single phrase and run without, sans context. We all make mistakes.

Can everyone just agree everyone except UC grads hate the Bearcats? UC is has a sports program so bad their arch-rival doesn't even have a football team and still stole their big-time conference membership out from under them.

On the other hand, they have a very fine medical school & hospital. And they share a city with the greatest (and yet hapless) baseball team of all time.

(10-16-2019 11:18 AM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  @TrojanCampaign. I said the MW “the 5 years prior to realignment”.

And concerning your reply about Cincinnati having G5 talent, etc, etc. usc Trojans have P5 talent and would get walloped by Ohio State this season.

We would lose for sure with Helton. But who knows?

Boise State is down for the count. IMO they have been ranked way to high for beating a bad FSU team. My guess is they won't get ranked in the commitee poll.

With Boise loss, I'd say there is a 90% chance the AAC champ gets the NY6 spot.

Only danger is if the AAC has a two-loss champ, and say App State is undefeated.

(10-17-2019 02:44 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  Can everyone just agree everyone except UC grads hate the Bearcats? UC is has a sports program so bad their arch-rival doesn't even have a football team and still stole their big-time conference membership out from under them.

On the other hand, they have a very fine medical school & hospital. And they share a city with the greatest (and yet hapless) baseball team of all time.

I like the Bearcats and didn’t go there.

Is SMU in the driver's seat now?

(10-20-2019 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  With Boise loss, I'd say there is a 90% chance the AAC champ gets the NY6 spot.

Only danger is if the AAC has a two-loss champ, and say App State is undefeated.

Agree 100 percent.

(10-20-2019 07:44 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Is SMU in the driver's seat now?

Yes, indeed.

But a loss (or two) could loom for the Ponies. SMU still needs to play Houston (rivalry game and a better team than its record suggests), ECU (sometimes has been bad this year but sometime has been solid) and three very good teams (Navy, Memphis and Tulane). Three of those five games are on the road.

However, if SMU wins though five and then beats Cincy, Temple or UCF in the AAC title game, the Ponies will be ranked about 10th to 12th in the nation at 13-0. If they then beat whomever in the NY6 bowl (it will be a Top 12 team, obviously) to finish 14-0 ... final national ranking of about sixth to eighth. Clearly Top 10. And deservedly so (and I think most of us on this board could agree on that).

But I don't see that 14-0 season remotely happening.

It is Appalachian State vs AAC Champ rest of the way unless the Mountaineers drop one.

(10-20-2019 09:52 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:44 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Is SMU in the driver's seat now?

Yes, indeed.

But a loss (or two) could loom for the Ponies. SMU still needs to play Houston (rivalry game and a better team than its record suggests), ECU (sometimes has been bad this year but sometime has been solid) and three very good teams (Navy, Memphis and Tulane). Three of those five games are on the road.

However, if SMU wins though five and then beats Cincy, Temple or UCF in the AAC title game, the Ponies will be ranked about 10th to 12th in the nation at 13-0. If they then beat whomever in the NY6 bowl (it will be a Top 12 team, obviously) to finish 14-0 ... final national ranking of about sixth to eighth. Clearly Top 10. And deservedly so (and I think most of us on this board could agree on that).

But I don't see that 14-0 season remotely happening.

I agree with this. SMU vs Memphis looms as a very big game.

Good chance Memphis ranked this week. AP #14, 16, 17, 22 and 25 lost. So did 26, 28 and 30 (Memphis is 32).
Coaches #13, 16, 17, 23 and 25 lost. So did 27 (Memphis #29).
Wake Forest, Virginia, Iowa St. and Memphis are the 4 battling for any new spots in the rankings.

(10-20-2019 07:26 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 02:44 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  Can everyone just agree everyone except UC grads hate the Bearcats? UC is has a sports program so bad their arch-rival doesn't even have a football team and still stole their big-time conference membership out from under them.

On the other hand, they have a very fine medical school & hospital. And they share a city with the greatest (and yet hapless) baseball team of all time.

I like the Bearcats and didn’t go there.

Me as well.

After looking at SMU's schedule, I think they are almost certain to go down in the next few weeks (and my school's schedule is softer than theirs). Don't see them in the game. Appy is playing tough, but I do think it's an AAC team that will get the nod.

I think a 1 or even 2 loss AAC champ gets the nod over App. All they have to do is beat SC, the rest are cupcakes.

Oy. Boise dropped the ball. New QB and all. :(

I’m agreeing with all y’all’s posts this morning concerning SMU in drivers seat. Just that they have many adversaries on the roof of the car trying to break the glass on the windshield and moon roof right now: Appalachian State, Memphis, Cincinnati, good lord, practically all of the AAC, really.

If SMU wins out, that will be super impressive! So would Appalachian State winning out (esp.: @South Carolina). Thing is, Mustang’s would be much more impressive. The AAC West is balls out this year. If you took AAC east from last season and AAC West from this season, and they played the same year in an alternate universe, I’d put the UCF vs SMU CCG winner (who would be undefeated) in the playoffs. Mainly because that alternate universe AAC would have been a better conference than the ACC of last season. So, if Clemson got in, why wouldn’t 13-0 UCF/SMU?...yeah, i know. Thee Committee.

That alternate universe JUST MIGHT come together in the next year or so!?!? If both AAC divisions peak again next season at the same time???...

BTW, I’m waiting for the AP and Coaches’ Polls to post so I can calculate and post Week 8. Sure we can say, “Bye bye Boise”. Just wondering how far they fall. To 3rd? 4th? 5th? 6th?

As long as App State loses 1 game the access bowl is going to SMU, Memphis, or Cincinnati.

(10-20-2019 10:56 AM)tigtoodawg Wrote:  After looking at SMU's schedule, I think they are almost certain to go down in the next few weeks (and my school's schedule is softer than theirs). Don't see them in the game. Appy is playing tough, but I do think it's an AAC team that will get the nod.

Not so sure.

Temple beat Memphis, Georgia Tech, and Maryland. They are a very good team and SMU dominated them. The score was only as close as it was because the SMU kicker sucks.

If they address their kicker issue they are going to destroy Memphis.

a team that folks from outside the AAC want to root for- but is really dangerous at the same time. Memphis. They get SMU and Cincy at home. So could knock both of those teams out. BUT at the same time- their other games are vs losing teams. If Memphis wins out with that schedule- and beats Cincy a 2nd time, or Temple, or UCF in the AAC CCG, going to be hard to see Memphis not getting the spot either.