quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,180
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2425
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: Increasing numbers of ranked non-P5 FB teams - a threat to the AAC's P6 aspirations?
(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.
|
|