(06-09-2021 10:17 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:29 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:26 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:07 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:04 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  jedclampett and JamesTKirk post on both the Realignment and AAC boards.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both post walls of words.
jedclampett and JamesTKirk both bold a lot and use ellipses and those “one paragraph periods”.

Jed Clampett and James T Kirk are both early 1960s fictional TV characters.

jedclampett and JamesTKirk are the same person.

This is exactly what I was noticing lol

JamesTKirk has also posted in a couple of jedclampett's "would you support a G5 movement for a new NY7 bowl" threads on the other conference boards.
There are more stylistic similarities, too.
- Opening with "that's an interesting article" then going off on a tangent
- Saying "A lot of posters have shown interest..." which resulted in this beauty:

(06-01-2021 07:14 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(06-01-2021 02:37 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  C-USA fans have shown some interest in the idea.

There are 10 posts in this thread. Five of them are you. 4 more are mocking you or the idea and one guy said he'd support it. That's not some interest. That's a complete lack of interest.

- Misrepresenting Aresco's interview statements

But the blank line-period-blank line offset seen in this thread was what clinched it for me.

This latest missive from another thread should seal the deal...

(06-09-2021 12:06 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Top 25 is too easy. We'd have 2-3 G5 champs ranked around #21 getting in over P5 teams ranked in the top 10.

Ok, you’re right.

True, but it is interesting to note that a few P5 champions were ranked #21st in the nation or lower, prior to NY bowl games, such as:

2020 #25 (AP/CFP) Oregon (4-2; 4-2)
2008 #21 (AP) Virginia Tech (9-4; 5-3)
2005 #22 (AP) Florida State (8-4; 5-3)

(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Top 20 is probably better.

In other words to quote you, "If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 20, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff."

That might seem like a radical idea to some people, but actually, it makes a lot of sense, and it could be done within a 12-team CFP format (see table below).

NOTE: In 2019, #19 (12-1) Boise St. and #20 (12-1) App. St. would have made their way into the CFP ahead of #11 (11-2) Utah and #12 (9-3) Auburn, by virtue of having won their conference championships.

The idea makes sense, logically, because a highly-ranked conference champion is a much more credible candidate for a national championship than is a team that has failed to meet that same basic threshold.

After all, how strong a claim can a team make on a national championship if it couldn't even manage to win its own conference championship?

If the rule you've suggested were to have been put into place:

(a) Three more G5 teams would have made it into the CFP over a 7-year period,

(b) The G5 would've been represented by more competitive teams in 2016 & '18, and the #12 team would have played in the CFP, rather than the #25 team in 2020.*

*#12 Coastal Carolina would've played in the 2020 CFP, rather than #25 Oregon.


G5 teams that would play in the CFP if they were required to be Top 20 (CFP) ranked G5 conference champions,
rather than simply being the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference:

Champion of the highest-........................Top 20 (CFP) ranked
ranked G5 conference:........................... conference champions:

2020....#8 Cincinnati.............................#8 Cincinnati; #12 Coastal Carolina (replaces #25 Oregon)
2019....#17 Memphis............................#17 Memphis; #19 Boise St.; #20 App St.
2018....#21 Fresno St............................#8 UCF (replaces #21)
2017....#12 UCF...................................#12 UCF
2016....#24 Temple..............................#15 Western Michigan (replaces #24)
2015....#18 Houston.............................#18 Houston
2014....#20 Boise St.............................#20 Boise St.

Most importantly, the column on the right might have been a more competitive slate of teams.

(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  IMO a 5:1 ratio of P5:G5 is healthy mix. Really need two G5 in there *on average*, if twelve teams are involved.

If the CFP were to be designed to ensure a representative ("healthy") mix of teams, by emulating the selection criteria for NCAA tournament teams, the CFP format would need to be expanded to at least 16 teams.

If the 12-team CFP format with auto-bids had been adopted in 2014, there only would have been one G5 at-large team (#8 UCF, in 2018).

#12 Coastal Carolina would have been bumped from the 2020 field by #25 Oregon.

There would be slightly more G5 at-large teams with a 16-team CFP Playoff Format:

..........Top-Ranked G5 conference / Champion...............Highest-Ranked
............(Massey Composite Conference Rankings)..............."At-Large" G5 Team

2020............AAC / #8 Cincinnati (9-0)....................#12 Coastal Carolina (11-0)
2019............AAC / #17 Memphis (12-1)..................#19 Boise State (12-1)
2018............MWC / #21 Fresno St. (12-2)................#8 UCF (12-0)
2017............AAC / #12 UCF (12-0).........................#20 Memphis (10-2)
2016............AAC /#24 Temple (10-3).....................#15 Western Michigan (13-0)
2015............AAC / #18 Houston (12-1)...................#21 Navy (9-2)
2014............MWC / #20 Boise St. (11-2).................#21 Louisville (9-3)

If a 16-team CFP with the basic 12-team criteria had been adopted in 2014, there would have been G5 at-large teams in 2016, 2018, and 2020.

The G5 would have had an average of 1.43 teams per year in the playoffs since 2014.

A 16-team CFP would also be a better test of which team is the true national champion, because the top-seeded teams wouldn't get a bye week.

In both respects, a 16-team CFP would be better than a 12-team CFP, from the standpoint of the G5 conferences. It would also be more consistent with the principles of sportsmanship that the NCAA tournament is based on.
.

The information in these tables indicate, or suggest that:

1) The proposed 12-team CFP expansion format would be unlikely to have more than one G5 team, unless or until more G5 teams are able to end the regular seasons in the nation's top 12.

2) It may be advisable to grant CFP access to G5 teams that and win their conference championships and finish in the CFP Top 20. This would result in a very modest, intermittent uptick in the number of G5 teams in the CFP, but would be consistent with the NCAA principles of sportsmanship evidenced in the selection of teams for the NCAA basketball tournament.

3) While a 12-team CFP with an automatic bid for one G5 team would be considered a step in the right direction from the standpoint of the G5 conferences, a 16-team CFP would have two major advantages: (A) By eliminating "bye" games for the top-seeded teams, it would permit all teams "to compete on a more even playing field," and (B) It would enable a slightly larger number of G5 teams to compete for a national championship (estimated 1.5 G5 teams per year, on average).

Manipulating the font color and text size? Now we're just playing ALL the hits!

JimRockfordFan

The real question is, why tf does jed need a sock account to post all his novels of nonsense?

There’s a theme in jedclampett’s posts where he actually believes what he says on message boards makes an impact as it gets passed up the hierarchy.

For example, this quote in a thread where one person supported his idea:

(05-30-2021 10:03 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  If anyone would like to see a bowl game like this come to pass, you might send it up the flagpole on whichever message boards you post on and mention it to some of your friends. If enough people start talking about this, the idea will filter up to the G5 conference executives. It would be a "grass roots" type of campaign.

jedclampett then wheels in his sock puppet, JamesTKirk, to sing the virtues of his idea thereafter.

So the answer is jedclampett actually believes his posts get passed up to university presidents - and that if he whistles in his sock puppets as cheerleaders - it will give the impression to university presidents that there’s more “grassroots support” (a term he uses) for his zany ideas than there actually is, and thus university presidents are more likely to enact jedclampett proposals.

(06-08-2021 08:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:34 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:25 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Only matters if the NCAA thinks they need to marry.

Or give up the CCG.

Or just play an unbalanced schedule...

^ everyone keeps conveniently leaving that option out when they're advocating for their CUSA, Sunbelt or MAC school to be added. I believe there's 3 or 4 schools the AAC will add, unless they want to come the conference will stay at 11 and keep the CCG even if it means annoying conference scheduling.

…but I don’t think that is an option. I believe the MAC had a waiver and that’s why they kept trying to balance their divisions. Otherwise, why didn’t the ACC stick at 11 like they wanted to and use unbalanced divisions? And why does the American have a waiver now?

The waiver simply allows the AAC to play a divisionless CCG without playing a full round robin within the conference. If the waiver is dropped, then the AAC can play uneven divisions. The expressly provides for uneven division indicating they are legal as long as they are as close to even as possible. There is no rule that would stop a CCG because some teams played more conference games than others (there is no need for a waiver on that issue--its just inconvenient and unwieldy). Back when the MAC had it waiver, the current language in the CCG rule addressing uneven divisions did not exist.

Ah, thanks for the info. Any idea when the language changed and what prompted it?

Taking a look at the ACC’s final football standings from last season and admiring the beauty of it all. I hope the American and ACC push for scrapping divisions; they’re arbitrary and don’t need to exist.

Let conferences decide their champion, their way! Our forefathers supported conference rights!!!

(06-09-2021 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Taking a look at the ACC’s final football standings from last season and admiring the beauty of it all. I hope the American and ACC push for scrapping divisions; they’re arbitrary and don’t need to exist.

Let conferences decide their champion, their way! Our forefathers supported conference rights!!!

I went back 30 years, since the dawn of the CCG to look at outcomes had conferences been divisionless and there are a whole slew of instances where there were messy ties that would have left fans irate and upset.

Divisions have their benefits.

(06-08-2021 10:18 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this. So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

I think a lot of it has to do with getting the Army - Navy game under the conference umbrella, idk the figures but I'd guess that's a high value game that's highlighted every year.

No question, the Army-Navy game is a high value game. So getting those two in the same conference could pay that dividend.

But generally speaking, I am baffled by the notion that these service academies bring any value worth mentioning to any conference with major aspirations.

(06-09-2021 01:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:18 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this. So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

I think a lot of it has to do with getting the Army - Navy game under the conference umbrella, idk the figures but I'd guess that's a high value game that's highlighted every year.

No question, the Army-Navy game is a high value game. So getting those two in the same conference could pay that dividend.

But generally speaking, I am baffled by the notion that these service academies bring any value worth mentioning to any conference with major aspirations.

quo - who would have the higher value in your opinion, Army or Buffalo?

(06-09-2021 10:41 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:17 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:29 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 04:26 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:07 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  This is exactly what I was noticing lol

JamesTKirk has also posted in a couple of jedclampett's "would you support a G5 movement for a new NY7 bowl" threads on the other conference boards.
There are more stylistic similarities, too.
- Opening with "that's an interesting article" then going off on a tangent
- Saying "A lot of posters have shown interest..." which resulted in this beauty:

(06-01-2021 07:14 PM)MUther Wrote:  There are 10 posts in this thread. Five of them are you. 4 more are mocking you or the idea and one guy said he'd support it. That's not some interest. That's a complete lack of interest.

- Misrepresenting Aresco's interview statements

But the blank line-period-blank line offset seen in this thread was what clinched it for me.

This latest missive from another thread should seal the deal...

(06-09-2021 12:06 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Ok, you’re right.

True, but it is interesting to note that a few P5 champions were ranked #21st in the nation or lower, prior to NY bowl games, such as:

2020 #25 (AP/CFP) Oregon (4-2; 4-2)
2008 #21 (AP) Virginia Tech (9-4; 5-3)
2005 #22 (AP) Florida State (8-4; 5-3)

(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Top 20 is probably better.

In other words to quote you, "If you win your conference (P5 or G5) and finish in the top 20, then you should be guaranteed an invite in to a 12 team playoff."

That might seem like a radical idea to some people, but actually, it makes a lot of sense, and it could be done within a 12-team CFP format (see table below).

NOTE: In 2019, #19 (12-1) Boise St. and #20 (12-1) App. St. would have made their way into the CFP ahead of #11 (11-2) Utah and #12 (9-3) Auburn, by virtue of having won their conference championships.

The idea makes sense, logically, because a highly-ranked conference champion is a much more credible candidate for a national championship than is a team that has failed to meet that same basic threshold.

After all, how strong a claim can a team make on a national championship if it couldn't even manage to win its own conference championship?

If the rule you've suggested were to have been put into place:

(a) Three more G5 teams would have made it into the CFP over a 7-year period,

(b) The G5 would've been represented by more competitive teams in 2016 & '18, and the #12 team would have played in the CFP, rather than the #25 team in 2020.*

*#12 Coastal Carolina would've played in the 2020 CFP, rather than #25 Oregon.


G5 teams that would play in the CFP if they were required to be Top 20 (CFP) ranked G5 conference champions,
rather than simply being the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference:

Champion of the highest-........................Top 20 (CFP) ranked
ranked G5 conference:........................... conference champions:

2020....#8 Cincinnati.............................#8 Cincinnati; #12 Coastal Carolina (replaces #25 Oregon)
2019....#17 Memphis............................#17 Memphis; #19 Boise St.; #20 App St.
2018....#21 Fresno St............................#8 UCF (replaces #21)
2017....#12 UCF...................................#12 UCF
2016....#24 Temple..............................#15 Western Michigan (replaces #24)
2015....#18 Houston.............................#18 Houston
2014....#20 Boise St.............................#20 Boise St.

Most importantly, the column on the right might have been a more competitive slate of teams.

(06-08-2021 07:18 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  IMO a 5:1 ratio of P5:G5 is healthy mix. Really need two G5 in there *on average*, if twelve teams are involved.

If the CFP were to be designed to ensure a representative ("healthy") mix of teams, by emulating the selection criteria for NCAA tournament teams, the CFP format would need to be expanded to at least 16 teams.

If the 12-team CFP format with auto-bids had been adopted in 2014, there only would have been one G5 at-large team (#8 UCF, in 2018).

#12 Coastal Carolina would have been bumped from the 2020 field by #25 Oregon.

There would be slightly more G5 at-large teams with a 16-team CFP Playoff Format:

..........Top-Ranked G5 conference / Champion...............Highest-Ranked
............(Massey Composite Conference Rankings)..............."At-Large" G5 Team

2020............AAC / #8 Cincinnati (9-0)....................#12 Coastal Carolina (11-0)
2019............AAC / #17 Memphis (12-1)..................#19 Boise State (12-1)
2018............MWC / #21 Fresno St. (12-2)................#8 UCF (12-0)
2017............AAC / #12 UCF (12-0).........................#20 Memphis (10-2)
2016............AAC /#24 Temple (10-3).....................#15 Western Michigan (13-0)
2015............AAC / #18 Houston (12-1)...................#21 Navy (9-2)
2014............MWC / #20 Boise St. (11-2).................#21 Louisville (9-3)

If a 16-team CFP with the basic 12-team criteria had been adopted in 2014, there would have been G5 at-large teams in 2016, 2018, and 2020.

The G5 would have had an average of 1.43 teams per year in the playoffs since 2014.

A 16-team CFP would also be a better test of which team is the true national champion, because the top-seeded teams wouldn't get a bye week.

In both respects, a 16-team CFP would be better than a 12-team CFP, from the standpoint of the G5 conferences. It would also be more consistent with the principles of sportsmanship that the NCAA tournament is based on.
.

The information in these tables indicate, or suggest that:

1) The proposed 12-team CFP expansion format would be unlikely to have more than one G5 team, unless or until more G5 teams are able to end the regular seasons in the nation's top 12.

2) It may be advisable to grant CFP access to G5 teams that and win their conference championships and finish in the CFP Top 20. This would result in a very modest, intermittent uptick in the number of G5 teams in the CFP, but would be consistent with the NCAA principles of sportsmanship evidenced in the selection of teams for the NCAA basketball tournament.

3) While a 12-team CFP with an automatic bid for one G5 team would be considered a step in the right direction from the standpoint of the G5 conferences, a 16-team CFP would have two major advantages: (A) By eliminating "bye" games for the top-seeded teams, it would permit all teams "to compete on a more even playing field," and (B) It would enable a slightly larger number of G5 teams to compete for a national championship (estimated 1.5 G5 teams per year, on average).

Manipulating the font color and text size? Now we're just playing ALL the hits!

JimRockfordFan

The real question is, why tf does jed need a sock account to post all his novels of nonsense?

There’s a theme in jedclampett’s posts where he actually believes what he says on message boards makes an impact as it gets passed up the hierarchy.

For example, this quote in a thread where one person supported his idea:

(05-30-2021 10:03 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  If anyone would like to see a bowl game like this come to pass, you might send it up the flagpole on whichever message boards you post on and mention it to some of your friends. If enough people start talking about this, the idea will filter up to the G5 conference executives. It would be a "grass roots" type of campaign.

jedclampett then wheels in his sock puppet, JamesTKirk, to sing the virtues of his idea thereafter.

So the answer is jedclampett actually believes his posts get passed up to university presidents - and that if he whistles in his sock puppets as cheerleaders - it will give the impression to university presidents that there’s more “grassroots support” (a term he uses) for his zany ideas than there actually is, and thus university presidents are more likely to enact jedclampett proposals.

So he’s delusional. Got it. (Not that any of us are surprised)

(06-08-2021 10:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this.

What has changed is your perspective. In the 1970s, you were watching, talking about, thinking about upper-level college football, what are now the P5 schools. Now, you're paying attention to what's now lower-FBS.

Notice that when the football independents coalesced into conferences, Army slotted into the original Conference USA, along with East Carolina.

Quote:So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

Because, relative to the AAC, or any G-5 league, getting Army (or having Navy) would be a big deal. Compared to Ohio State or Arkansas or even Maryland or Purdue or Kansas State or Utah, it's not much. But those aren't the relevant comparisons--the relevant comparisons are UAB and SMU and Colorado State and Boise State and Troy and North Texas.

Maybe a half-dozen G5 schools are objectively stronger brands or programs. You can probably make a case for another half-dozen to a dozen. But the rest are clearly not as nationally relevant as Army or Navy or Air Force.

EDIT: And actually, if I remember right, when the Big 12 was looking to rebound after losing Colorado and Nebraska, and then Missouri, they reached out to Air Force. https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/i...-air-force

That's the rub - I don't think Air Force is any more valuable than Fresno State, Army any more valuable than Colorado State, etc.

I don't get why people think they are almost quasi-P level in terms of brand.

(06-09-2021 08:55 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 08:39 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Army is not joining the AAC. It is a dead subject. I think moves out west are done. Staying at 11 makes the most sense short term, watch the big city schools in CUSA and the BELT and see who rises above the pack. A big city school would make most sense if they rise from the ashes, Atlanta, Charlotte, Buffalo, Birmingham.

Army is still gun-shy (no pun intended) after their CUSA experience in the 1990s. They were not competitive and it set their program back afterwards for a decade or more.

To be honest---I think the Army program was just bad those years. I suspect the CUSA role in that is often a little over stated. CUSA simply supplied the opponents. I dont think the Army record during that period would have been much better as an indy. They were 4-7 the year before they joined CUSA. They were 2-9 in their last year in CUSA and were 4-7, 3-9, 3-9, and 3-9 in the 4 years after they left CUSA. They were just not a good program during those years.

I’ve got a solution to the 11 teams/divisional thing:

East: Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF
West: Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulane

Navy alternates between the 2: Odd years in the East, Even years in the West.

In the years when Navy is in your division, those 5 schools play a 9th conference game.

(06-09-2021 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Taking a look at the ACC’s final football standings from last season and admiring the beauty of it all. I hope the American and ACC push for scrapping divisions; they’re arbitrary and don’t need to exist.

Let conferences decide their champion, their way! Our forefathers supported conference rights!!!

Personally---I like divisions. It makes the race more fun. Interestingly---it turns out that apparently the presidents prefer divisions as well. So, the presidents would prefer to get back to 12 playing in 2 even divisions. That said, the presidents are smart enough to understand it is counter productive to add a team that does not add value to the conference's brand. Getting to drop your worst football team and replace it with a high quality program is a unique opportunity for any league. It rarely happens. Usually, your worst teams NEVER want to leave. Im happy to see that the presidents and league leadership understand the importance of this opportunity and are not blowing it by simply rushing to add a warm body just because its located in the footprint, had a really good 2020, or "has potential". They have decided to have the patience and wisdom to wait until a school with a proven consistent track record of excellence that obviously adds brand value is available. Thats a very savvy move in my opinion.

(06-09-2021 01:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Taking a look at the ACC’s final football standings from last season and admiring the beauty of it all. I hope the American and ACC push for scrapping divisions; they’re arbitrary and don’t need to exist.

Let conferences decide their champion, their way! Our forefathers supported conference rights!!!

Personally---I like divisions. It makes the race more fun. More improtantly---apparently the presidents prefer divisions as well. So, they would prefer to get back to 12. That said, the presidents are smart enough to understand it is counter productive to add a team that does not add value to the conference's brand. Getting to drop your worst football team and replace it is a unique opportunity for the league. Im happy to see that the presidents and league leadership are not blowing it by simply rushing to add a warm body just because its centrally located or "has potential". They have decided to have the patience and wisdom to wait until a school that adds value is available. Thats very savvy move in my opinion.

I'm happy as well. Aresco is taking a prudent, measured approach to filling, or not filling, that open slot. The guiding principle does seem to be "yes, but only if they add real value" which is the correct approach.

(06-08-2021 07:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:53 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  I agree to some extent. Guess I was putting them in the same category as Tulane. Though they do have a recent history of excellent sports unlike Tulane. A football game between Buffalo and Tulane would be about as exciting as a Princeton vs Dartmouth game.

I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.

Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.

I would be fine with Buffalo for all-sports as the AAC's No. 12, but the points you and ACoog make are very valid, Quo.

I do like the thought of a university that 1. has strong academic clout in a highly populated state; and 2. brings a solid one-two punch in football and hoops. Thus, UB intrigues me.

Having grown up in and around New York City, my sense is that most New Yorkers hardly even consider Buffalo a part of the state. Their fan support is pretty local, and Buffalo isn't very big. This is a team that averages about 16K attendance for football. They are more likely to get support from Toronto than from Syracuse (much less the heavily populated part of New York which is NYC plus Long Island). And that one-two punch is from a lightweight, not a heavyweight.

I doubt the AAC gives them a second thought.

Buffalo has 1.1 million people. Rochester and Syracuse add near 2 million combined.

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'd actually tune in for a Buffalo vs Tulane football game. Tulane isn't a doormat anymore, they've been a 7-6 type team the past few years and their talent has upgraded. I'd think that would make for a good minor-level bowl game.

Buffalo does have some good fundamentals. But as "coog" said, they have zero brand value. They just have no name recognition at all. Save for Syracuse, NY state is just an empty wasteland for college athletics, in terms of national interest.

Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this. So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

There are millions of veterans. Look at TV ratings. Army, Navy and Air Force are probably the top 3 after the P5 and BYU.

(06-09-2021 11:49 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Taking a look at the ACC’s final football standings from last season and admiring the beauty of it all. I hope the American and ACC push for scrapping divisions; they’re arbitrary and don’t need to exist.

Let conferences decide their champion, their way! Our forefathers supported conference rights!!!

I went back 30 years, since the dawn of the CCG to look at outcomes had conferences been divisionless and there are a whole slew of instances where there were messy ties that would have left fans irate and upset.

Divisions have their benefits.

Really. If the ACC and Big 10 want to go divisionless, kick out 4 teams.

(06-09-2021 11:49 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  Taking a look at the ACC’s final football standings from last season and admiring the beauty of it all. I hope the American and ACC push for scrapping divisions; they’re arbitrary and don’t need to exist.

Let conferences decide their champion, their way! Our forefathers supported conference rights!!!

I went back 30 years, since the dawn of the CCG to look at outcomes had conferences been divisionless and there are a whole slew of instances where there were messy ties that would have left fans irate and upset.

Divisions have their benefits.

That’s because strong teams weren’t playing each other. Why would a conference avoid pitting their best teams against one another if they had the choice? To be clear, I don’t advocate an even rotating schedule.

https://mwwire.com/2021/06/08/aac-wanted...no-takers/

(06-08-2021 10:31 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:19 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  "The G5 autobid to the CFP is coming, we don't need Boise anymore."

or possibly:

"The G5 autobid to the CFP is coming; now, Boise is calling us, for a change."

.

....in reference to this:


Pete Thamel has written an article suggesting that surprisingly rapid progress has been made by the CFP committee's four-member working group toward a recommendation for a 12-team CFP expansion, which - theoretically - could go into effect as early as 2023:

"Yahoo Sports spoke to ... university officials, athletic directors, media executives and others around college sports. Amid those conversations, a surprise emerged — officials on campuses, in conference offices and in the television world have expressed an openness toward a 12-team playoff as the most likely result.

While it’s unfair to say momentum has built toward a 12-team playoff before models have been presented to the commissioners or presidents, the 12-team model has emerged as the favored outcome within the industry.

The two days of discussion by the management committee (July 17 & 18) are expected to yield a recommendation for the following week. That’s when the CFP board of managers ...will examine what’s put forward and likely determine the potential shape...of the playoff's future."

How would 12 teams work? The basic thought is automatic bids for the five major conferences — which also juices up their league title games as play-in games — and one for the highest ranked Group of Five champion. "

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...ZBt94PJA2U

.


There's no assurance that a 12-team CFP expansion would necessarily be approved, and if approved, it wouldn't go into effect before 2023, at the earliest.

However, the development of a strong consensus to adopt a 12-team CFP format could make it difficult for the opponents of CFP expansion to block a proposal that has rapidly developed widespread national support.

The two PAC-12 representatives and the five G5 representatives have strong reasons to favor a 12-team CFP expansion; only one of the 8 ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC representatives would have to side with them in order for a motion to adopt a 12-team CFP format to pass.

.

Oh my goodness lol.....who do you think you’re fooling Clampent hahahahahahaha

(06-09-2021 01:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve got a solution to the 11 teams/divisional thing:

East: Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF
West: Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulane

Navy alternates between the 2: Odd years in the East, Even years in the West.

In the years when Navy is in your division, those 5 schools play a 9th conference game.

Doesn't quite solve the problem. Say Navy is in the East this year.
East teams have 5 division games, 4 crossover games x 6 = 24 crossover games
West teams have 4 division games, 4 crossover games x 5 = 20 crossover games

24 is more than 20.

Moving Navy around doesn't do you any good. (Also, Navy does NOT want a 9 game conference slate--9 games plus Army, Notre Dame, Air Force and that's their full slate)

You COULD put Navy back in the West, and have 2 of the other 5 Western teams play an extra conference game.

Or, let's get nuts. Scrap the east-west divisions, go zipper format. Make SMU-Houston, USF-UCF, maybe Memphis-Tulane protected cross-division rivalries. That way when one of those schools plays a 9th conference game, it doesn't sting as much.

(Does Navy still really really care about being in the Western division, or was that about Texas AND San Diego AND Boise State?)

(06-09-2021 02:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 01:23 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve got a solution to the 11 teams/divisional thing:

East: Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF, USF
West: Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulane

Navy alternates between the 2: Odd years in the East, Even years in the West.

In the years when Navy is in your division, those 5 schools play a 9th conference game.

Doesn't quite solve the problem. Say Navy is in the East this year.
East teams have 5 division games, 4 crossover games x 6 = 24 crossover games
West teams have 4 division games, 4 crossover games x 5 = 20 crossover games

24 is more than 20.

Moving Navy around doesn't do you any good. (Also, Navy does NOT want a 9 game conference slate--9 games plus Army, Notre Dame, Air Force and that's their full slate)

You COULD put Navy back in the West, and have 2 of the other 5 Western teams play an extra conference game.

Or, let's get nuts. Scrap the east-west divisions, go zipper format. Make SMU-Houston, USF-UCF, maybe Memphis-Tulane protected cross-division rivalries. That way when one of those schools plays a 9th conference game, it doesn't sting as much.

(Does Navy still really really care about being in the Western division, or was that about Texas AND San Diego AND Boise State?)

It was and is about Tulane and SMU and to some extent, Tulsa. The privates that they are competitive with.