(04-28-2021 09:59 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 09:24 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 09:11 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 05:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Thanks for calling my attention to it.
I show final 2020 Massey Composite (with 56 rankings compiled) conference average ranking:
ACC 59.53
AAC 68.98
SBC 71.97
AAC is 9.45 behind ACC and 2.99 ahead of SBC.
Reconstructing what I did two weeks ago, I was going from a post from late January. An earlier post in that thread ("AAC Still #1 non-contract-bowl conference?") cited Massey Composite with 55 rankings compiled - so just that single additional ranking compiled changed the numbers by 0.13 and 0.05 average ranking spots.

That offers NO explanation for messing up 2014!
Looks like I inserted the ACC MC conference average ranking there, not the difference between that and the AAC...so thanks!
ACC 48.73
mwc 76.73
CUSA 82.28
AAC 83.93
You are spot on: 35.2 behind the #5 and 7.2 behind #6.
I'll be correcting the original post in this thread, plus the January post. And here's an updated graph - still looks pretty similar.

The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

I. The Trendlines:

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved by about 4 rankings "notches" (e.g., a "5 ranks" advantage in 2015 and a "9 ranks" advantage in 2020), relative to the average G4 rankings.

--The trendlines indicate that the average AAC rankings have improved much more markedly - -by about 17 rankings notches (e.g., a "~23 ranks" gap in 2015, dropping down to a "~6 ranks" gap in 2020), relative to the average P5 rankings.

--Taken together, the two trendlines suggest that the AAC's rankings may have improved somewhat more relative to the P5 rankings (by narrowing the gap with the P5 teams) than they have relative to the average G4 rankings.

II. The Year-by-Year Data in the Graph:

--A. Year-by-year comparisons with the P5 rankings:

----There appears to be some evidence of a step-wise function:

----Phase 1 (2014): P5 rankings were ~35 ranks ahead of AAC rankings.
----Phase 2 (2015-2018): P5 rankings were only ~15-25 ranks ahead.
----Phase 3 (2019-2020): P5 rankings were only ~5 ranks ahead.

--B. Year-by-year comparisons with the G4 rankings:

----The AAC rankings have oscillated within a slightly narrower range (with an upward trend) relative to the rankings of the G4 rankings.


III. Given how atypical (and "outlier-like") the 2015 AAC rankings were,

--is it possible that the association that we're examining might be "curvilinear," rather than "linear?"

There appears to be some hint of curvilinearity in the 2014-2020 data.

--what would the trendlines be if the graph were to zoom in on the years 2015-2020,

AAC-P5 trendline: The improvement vis a vis P5 rankings remains evident between 2015 and 2020, but it would be less marked in magnitude (closer to a "10 rankings" reduction in the AAC-P5 rankings gap than to a "17-rankings" reduction in the size of the rankings gap between 2014 and 2020).

--Nevertheless, this "10 rankings" reduction in the rankings gap would still be considered very significant.

AAC-G4 trendline: Compared to the 2014-2020 trendline, the 2015-2020 AAC-G4 trendline would flatten out considerably with an average gap of ~ "8 rankings" in favor of the AAC.

--The AAC hasn't moved much farther ahead of the G4 from the standpoint of their average rankings, but it has [i]maintained a fairly sizable rankings lead over the G4 since 2015.[/i]

.



.

Here's another look - at the conference average ranking in Massey Composite for all 10 conferences (plus the independents are in there) from 2013 to 2020. This is average ranking, so lower is better.

- AAC trendline is improvement, and looks like a greater improvement than any of the G4s.
- SunBelt and MAC show similar slope on the trendline, from a much worse starting point...but those two trendlines greatly benefit from their 2020 outliers - they were a lot flatter going 2013-2019.
- mwc relatively flat
-CUSA trending the wrong direction.
- in the contract-bowl conferences, B12 improving, B10 pretty flat, SEC coming back to the rest of that five-team group, and ACC & PAC12 coming back to the AAC.

That's composited average rankings - AAC benefits from being consistently stronger than the G4s top-to-bottom. But relevant to a couple posts ago, in the brand/perception arena, the top of the conference will still be important, so there is also still room to discuss top-25 rankings like AP/Coaches' Polls and CFP rankings.

It's a solid point that the 2020 data should perhaps be considered to be either "outliers" or even somewhat "unrepresentative" in some respects.

However, the 2014 data are also discrepant enough with the data between 2015 and 2019 to either be considered outliers or to suggest that some of the relationships might be curvilinear in nature (in that case, not only would linear regression lines, but also curvilinear trajectories (e.g., "data smoothing" lines) would be of interest.

It would thus be interesting to see what the graph would look like if the outlier years 2014 and 2020 were excluded from the graph.

Regarding 2020 - I suppose there is a discussion to be had about "unreliability" smaller samples, less inter-conference data, etc. But 2020 wasn't really an outlier for the AAC: looking at 2013-2020 or 2015-2020 it's close to the trendline. 2018 was an outlier to the negative, 2019 slightly less an outlier to the positive for the AAC.
2020 really changes things for the SunBelt and MAC. And we've discussed elsewhere how variably the five rating systems dictating CFP payout performance shares treated the MAC.
(I think I was adding my "other thoughts" edit while you were drafting your reply)

But here are 2015-2019 and 2015-2020. AAC does benefit from omitting 2014 - trendline flattens. It seems to me that this is a case where more data is better, though. Just a five year sample is less representative than the seven or eight, right? Anyway, here are two more graphs, with all 11 trendlines flattening.

That was quick! Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

I'm attaching the 2015-2020 version (below) so others can see it. The 2015-2019 version is so similar that the differences would be barely noticeable to most readers.

It shows that, even with the 2014 "outliers" trimmed out:

1) the AAC was a clear-cut "tweener" from 2015-2020

2) The AAC's rankings improved relative to four of the P5 conferences from between 2015 and 2020.

3) The rankings of the MWC, MAC, and SBC all improved to some extent from 2015 through 2020. The rankings of the SBC showed the most improvement, but this was partially offset by the fact that they started out dead last.

Very interesting. Plenty of details to ponder.

(04-29-2021 11:16 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It shows that, even with the 2014 "outliers" trimmed out:

1) the AAC was a clear-cut "tweener" from 2015-2020

A tweener, but one clearly closer to the Gs than the Ps.

(04-29-2021 11:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:16 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It shows that, even with the 2014 "outliers" trimmed out:

1) the AAC was a clear-cut "tweener" from 2015-2020

A tweener, but one clearly closer to the Gs than the Ps.

The graph may be perceived in different ways by different people, but the numbers make it clear that the AAC was a true - nearly perfect tweener between 2015 and 2020.

Specifically, the trendlines in the 2015-2020 graph show that the AAC's mid-point to be about 70, which is almost exactly half-way between the mid-point of the P5s (about 50) and the mid-point of the G4s (about 90).


It's only in the later years of the graph that 3 of the G4 conferences have started to catch up with the AAC in the rankings.

There are optical illusions, such as the Muller-Lyer illusion that can affect such visual comparisons (see figure below).

(04-29-2021 11:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:16 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It shows that, even with the 2014 "outliers" trimmed out:

1) the AAC was a clear-cut "tweener" from 2015-2020

A tweener, but one clearly closer to the Gs than the Ps.

You can pound that lectern all you want. Dosen't make it true. Regarding your last post in answer to mine about MC data from last year, your argument holds merit with regard to the SEC, BigX, and the PacXII, but dosen't for the G5 conferences that DID play almost a full schedule. The data points were by-and-large there. Another thing, SBC's record against the P5.... Whom did they play? What was the cumulative rankings of their P5 opponents? Did ANY G5 play a bowl opponent at the level that Cincy did? How about the other AAC bowl losses? Did we have key personnel sitting the bowl game out vs. the SBC bowl teams went full strength? I don't have the time to research all of that, but they are pertinent issues.

(04-29-2021 12:49 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:16 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It shows that, even with the 2014 "outliers" trimmed out:

1) the AAC was a clear-cut "tweener" from 2015-2020

A tweener, but one clearly closer to the Gs than the Ps.

You can pound that lectern all you want. Dosen't make it true. Regarding your last post in answer to mine about MC data from last year, your argument holds merit with regard to the SEC, BigX, and the PacXII, but dosen't for the G5 conferences that DID play almost a full schedule. The data points were by-and-large there. Another thing, SBC's record against the P5.... Whom did they play? What was the cumulative rankings of their P5 opponents? Did ANY G5 play a bowl opponent at the level that Cincy did? How about the other AAC bowl losses? Did we have key personnel sitting the bowl game out vs. the SBC bowl teams went full strength? I don't have the time to research all of that, but they are pertinent issues.

Well, what does make the bolded part true are the numbers. Over the seven seasons of the CFP, the AAC has finished on average of about 16 MC points away from the nearest P5, about 7 points away from the nearest G5. That's a lost closer to the nearest G5. Even throwing out the outlier of 2014, it's still 13 to 9, and if we are going to do that, then we should throw out the 2019 outlier that favored the AAC vs the P5, and then it goes back up to 15 to 8.

Bottom line is the AAC has clearly been much closer to the G group than the P group during the CFP era.

As for AAC vs SBC in 2020, what P5 the SBC played, that doesn't mean much in this case, because you're not going to be able to make 1-4 better than 3-1 no matter who you played. It's just a whole lot worse. Throw out Cincy losing to Georgia, and it's still a whole lot worse, same with the bowl records. As for who played at full or less strength, that's literally meaningless, it never factors in to any computer rankings.

I'm sorry, but the preponderance of the evidence says that the SBC was better in 2020 than the AAC.

(04-29-2021 12:44 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:16 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It shows that, even with the 2014 "outliers" trimmed out:

1) the AAC was a clear-cut "tweener" from 2015-2020

A tweener, but one clearly closer to the Gs than the Ps.

The graph may be perceived in different ways by different people, but the numbers make it clear that the AAC was a true - nearly perfect tweener between 2015 and 2020.

Specifically, the trendlines in the 2015-2020 graph show that the AAC's mid-point to be about 70, which is almost exactly half-way between the mid-point of the P5s (about 50) and the mid-point of the G4s (about 90).

I would say "tween" is best defined as the closest P5 and G5, not the mid-point. Because using midpoint, you could have a crazy result such as:

(Lower number is better, CFP seven year averages):

SEC .... 30
B12 .... 32
B1G .... 33
PAC .... 55
ACC .... 60

Midpoint = 42

AAC .... 60

Rest of G4 .... all 75, so midpoint =75

In that case, the midpoint would tell us the AAC is closer to the G group (15 points from G4 midpoint) then the P5 group (18 points away) even though the AAC was in fact as good as the worst P5. That would not make any sense, IMO. The AAC would clearly be a "P" group league.

So best to go with "nearest", and the AAC average during the CFP era is clearly closer to the nearest P5 then the nearest other-G.

(04-29-2021 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 12:49 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:16 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It shows that, even with the 2014 "outliers" trimmed out:

1) the AAC was a clear-cut "tweener" from 2015-2020

A tweener, but one clearly closer to the Gs than the Ps.

You can pound that lectern all you want. Dosen't make it true. Regarding your last post in answer to mine about MC data from last year, your argument holds merit with regard to the SEC, BigX, and the PacXII, but dosen't for the G5 conferences that DID play almost a full schedule. The data points were by-and-large there. Another thing, SBC's record against the P5.... Whom did they play? What was the cumulative rankings of their P5 opponents? Did ANY G5 play a bowl opponent at the level that Cincy did? How about the other AAC bowl losses? Did we have key personnel sitting the bowl game out vs. the SBC bowl teams went full strength? I don't have the time to research all of that, but they are pertinent issues.

Well, what does make the bolded part true are the numbers. Over the seven seasons of the CFP, the AAC has finished on average of about 16 MC points away from the nearest P5, about 7 points away from the nearest G5. That's a lost closer to the nearest G5. Even throwing out the outlier of 2014, it's still 13 to 9, and if we are going to do that, then we should throw out the 2019 outlier that favored the AAC vs the P5, and then it goes back up to 15 to 8.

Bottom line is the AAC has clearly been much closer to the G group than the P group during the CFP era.

As for AAC vs SBC in 2020, what P5 the SBC played, that doesn't mean much in this case, because you're not going to be able to make 1-4 better than 3-1 no matter who you played. It's just a whole lot worse. Throw out Cincy losing to Georgia, and it's still a whole lot worse, same with the bowl records. As for who played at full or less strength, that's literally meaningless, it never factors in to any computer rankings.

I'm sorry, but the preponderance of the evidence says that the SBC was better in 2020 than the AAC.

I guess the more overarching point about this is what you can visually infer from this graph. 2017, and it reflects the main thrust of the CFP years in general. It is not that we are closer to the P5. It is that we are obviously separated. Look how closely the G4 is grouped compared to us.



Also...

Quote:As for AAC vs SBC in 2020, what P5 the SBC played, that doesn't mean much in this case, because you're not going to be able to make 1-4 better than 3-1 no matter who you played. It's just a whole lot worse. Throw out Cincy losing to Georgia, and it's still a whole lot worse, same with the bowl records. As for who played at full or less strength, that's literally meaningless, it never factors in to any computer rankings.

Bullcrap. If the 25th best team in America played Alabama 12 times for it's season, their record would be 0-12, almost guaranteed. By your logic, they would be the worst team in America.

So I went back and looked at the bowl results just to confirm my suspicions.
Coastal... You know, their champion, lost in overtime to an unranked Liberty.
App State beat the sh!t out of North Texas.... as in 4-5 losing record North Texas... Stop the freakin' presses. NT should not have even been to a bowl.
Georgia Southern whooped up on a .500 LaTech. OF CUSA, so get that outta here.
Louisiana beat a fairly decent (by CUSA terms) 7-4 UTSA by a single touchdown.
Georgia State beat another team that had no business in a bowl, Western Kentucky who had a losing record @ 5-6.

Our champion lost by the same margin (3pts) as Coastal did, but to the #9 team in the country.
Tulane lost to Nevada... A MW team with 2 losses on the year.
UCF lost to #11 BYU who had only 1 loss on the year.
We beat Florida Atlantic handily
Houston got spanked by Hawaii, another MW team.
And Tulsa lost to an SEC team by 2 points.

Don't tell me opponents don't matter.

(04-29-2021 03:29 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 12:49 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 11:16 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It shows that, even with the 2014 "outliers" trimmed out:

1) the AAC was a clear-cut "tweener" from 2015-2020

A tweener, but one clearly closer to the Gs than the Ps.

You can pound that lectern all you want. Dosen't make it true. Regarding your last post in answer to mine about MC data from last year, your argument holds merit with regard to the SEC, BigX, and the PacXII, but dosen't for the G5 conferences that DID play almost a full schedule. The data points were by-and-large there. Another thing, SBC's record against the P5.... Whom did they play? What was the cumulative rankings of their P5 opponents? Did ANY G5 play a bowl opponent at the level that Cincy did? How about the other AAC bowl losses? Did we have key personnel sitting the bowl game out vs. the SBC bowl teams went full strength? I don't have the time to research all of that, but they are pertinent issues.

Well, what does make the bolded part true are the numbers. Over the seven seasons of the CFP, the AAC has finished on average of about 16 MC points away from the nearest P5, about 7 points away from the nearest G5. That's a lost closer to the nearest G5. Even throwing out the outlier of 2014, it's still 13 to 9, and if we are going to do that, then we should throw out the 2019 outlier that favored the AAC vs the P5, and then it goes back up to 15 to 8.

Bottom line is the AAC has clearly been much closer to the G group than the P group during the CFP era.

As for AAC vs SBC in 2020, what P5 the SBC played, that doesn't mean much in this case, because you're not going to be able to make 1-4 better than 3-1 no matter who you played. It's just a whole lot worse. Throw out Cincy losing to Georgia, and it's still a whole lot worse, same with the bowl records. As for who played at full or less strength, that's literally meaningless, it never factors in to any computer rankings.

I'm sorry, but the preponderance of the evidence says that the SBC was better in 2020 than the AAC.

I guess the more overarching point about this is what you can visually infer from this graph. 2017, and it reflects the main thrust of the CFP years in general. It is not that we are closer to the P5. It is that we are obviously separated. Look how closely the G4 is grouped compared to us.

Also...

Quote:As for AAC vs SBC in 2020, what P5 the SBC played, that doesn't mean much in this case, because you're not going to be able to make 1-4 better than 3-1 no matter who you played. It's just a whole lot worse. Throw out Cincy losing to Georgia, and it's still a whole lot worse, same with the bowl records. As for who played at full or less strength, that's literally meaningless, it never factors in to any computer rankings.

Bullcrap. If the 25th best team in America played Alabama 12 times for it's season, their record would be 0-12, almost guaranteed. By your logic, they would be the worst team in America.

That's a pretty graph, but I've always said the AAC has been separated from the other Gs (that's what a tweener means), my point was that they have been a tweener who is much closer to the Gs than the Ps though, and that is true.

As for playing Alabama 25 times or whatever, yes, at that extreme you'd have something to talk about. But here, you don't.

The AAC's best win over the P5 was against Georgia Tech, who went 3-7, a very bad football team.

The SBC's best win vs the P5 was against Iowa State, who won the Fiesta Bowl over the PAC 12 champ.

The SBC was better, just admit it.

I DID have something to talk about. In the next post. Read it and weep.

Additional comments:
UCF did not just beat Georgia Tech, they destroyed them 49-21
Our losses? To #19 Oklahoma State (a respectable 7-16 score with Tulsa), and #5 Notre Dame destroyed USF.... who didn't win a SINGLE conference game.

2 of the funbelt's P5 wins were against Kansas and Kansas State. *cough* UNRANKED *cough*
Give us all a freaking break.

(04-29-2021 04:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's a pretty graph, but I've always said the AAC has been separated from the other Gs, my point was that they have been a tweener...

A "tweener?" Yes.

(04-29-2021 04:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  much closer to the Gs than the Ps though, and "that is true."

That's where you're wrong.

The graphs make it clear that that is not true - - it is false.

You're the only person on these message boards who has been repeating that dogma for years after people stopped listening.

You haven't convinced anyone.

"and that is true."

.

I am not going to look at numbers, not going to look a graphs....

I am going to give you my perception... How I perceive it. I am West coast. I am biased. I follow NCAA Football. I talk to friends and family about NCAA football. So Western perspective, gut feel watching and talking.

6 or 7 years ago did not think much of the AAC that formed after the Big East
disintegrated. Thought the MWC was the 1st one left off the power list. Since then the MWC has floundered. They have not been bad but they really have not raised their own bar. AAC has really raised their bar. I think they are stronger than the MWC and separating a little more every year. My perception.

Sorry don't mean to hurt any feelings but the SBC has been bottom rung. They have been raising their bar. They had a really good year this last year. Maybe they are starting to rise to the level of MAC or even CUSA. They sure are not at MWC level yet. One year does not change perceptions. It is when you do it year after year after year.

SBC at AAC level? Not even close. Not trying to be mean but that is just the perception of the people I talk to and myself. You want to get there... Spend the next 5 years beating the AAC teams... Then I will slowly over those 5 years change my mind, one game at a time.

When asked what do you think of America, an old Chinese man said, I don't know they haven't been around long enough, we will see in a thousand years.

(04-29-2021 09:19 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 08:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The graph (reprinted below) is really a nice contribution to the discussion. Kudos for that!

It could further the discussion to share our thoughts about what the findings show. Here's one AAC fan's take on what the data show:

We could also look at moving averages:

Regarding the AAC/G4 relationship

2014: -7.2 (baseline)
2015: +3.6
2016: +5.6
2017: +8.5
2018: +6.3
2019: +7.6
2020: +6.9

So on that basis, we see that from 2014 - 2017 the AAC steadily and significantly increased its moving average, pulling away from the G4, but since 2017, the number has dipped from that peak.

And really, the 2020 number flatters the AAC. The SBC was probably actually better, but the computers were working with limited data, and some probably backfilled with data from 2019, a year that greatly favored the AAC.

That's multiple times I have seen you make that statement. What draws you to that conclusion?

Because yes.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(04-29-2021 04:26 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I DID have something to talk about. In the next post. Read it and weep.

I read it, LOL.

I was amused at some of your descriptions, e.g., saying "Tulsa lost to an SEC team by two points" is to me better expressed as "Tulsa, the AAC runner-up who played champ Cincy to a standstill on the road in the CCG, lost to a 3-7 Mississippi State team that had become a laughingstock at the end of the year, before they beat AAC runner-up Tulsa".

Bottom line is that the SBC had a much better record vs the P5 than did the AAC, and its best win over the P5 was much better than the AACs. The SBC had a far better record in bowls than did the AAC.

And our bowl losses were not all against Georgia. In addition to losing to Mississippi State, we got crunched by Nevada, whipped by BYU, whipped by Hawaii in bowls too.

Houston was an 8-point favorite vs Hawaii in their bowl and lost by 14!

Tulane was a 3-point favorite vs Nevada and lost by 11!

UCF was a 6-point dog vs BYU and lost by 100 points or something!

IMO that pig of a bowl season cannot be dressed up, and it is far worse than the SBCs was. The SBC bowl results were just much better.


The SBC had a better year. I just don't see any way around that.

(04-29-2021 05:46 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 04:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  much closer to the Gs than the Ps though, and "that is true."

That's where you're wrong.

The graphs make it clear that that is not true - - it is false.

You're the only person on these message boards who has been repeating that dogma for years after people stopped listening.

You haven't convinced anyone.

"and that is true." :woohoo

Actually, I am very much right about it, and your use of Emojis cannot substitute for facts.

As I explained, the AAC has on average been much closer to the nearest G5 during the CFP era than the nearest P5.

You tried to use a "mid-point" metric to claim otherwise, but I explained above how that is problematic. Here it is again for you:

"I would say "tween" is best defined as the closest P5 and G5, not the mid-point. Because using midpoint, you could have a crazy result such as:

(Lower number is better, CFP seven year averages):

SEC .... 30
B12 .... 32
B1G .... 33
PAC .... 55
ACC .... 60

Midpoint = 42

AAC .... 60

Rest of G4 .... all 75, so midpoint =75

In that case, the midpoint would tell us the AAC is closer to the G group (15 points from G4 midpoint) then the P5 group (18 points away) even though the AAC was in fact as good as the worst P5. That would not make any sense, IMO. The AAC would clearly be a "P" group league.

So best to go with "nearest", and the AAC average during the CFP era is clearly closer to the nearest P5 then the nearest other-G."

So, that's where things stand, no matter how much you huff and puff, LOL.