(06-12-2021 08:30 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 03:28 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  But, each team is pulling for itself, not for a conference. Boise wants Boise to be in the playoff. Boise is, at best, neutral on whether any other team makes the playoff. The pitch to them can't be, "Join us and help Cincinnati or Houston make the playoff." What would be persuasive is if someone could demonstrate to Boise that Boise's own playoff chances are 5x or 10x better in the AAC.

Wedge,

You are talking to AAC fans. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that they can only see what is good for them, but are completely incapable of seeing the point of view of anyone else. It's a bubble.

I think it's a wash for Boise State. They probably have a better chance of running the table in the MWC and getting a high rank than if they had to slog through the four best AAC schools. They are going to be the top team in the MWC every other year and in contention for the playoff spot; but likely only once every 4 or 5 years be the top team in the AAC and in contention. Even if the AAC is 5x as likely as the MWC to get that top spot, the statistical odds are pretty much the same for Boise State. [1]

And we really don't know if the playoff committee is going to give extra weight to the AAC top school, or if they are going to elevate the G5 school with fewer losses regardless of conference. Right now the AP plays an outsized role in ranking because the committee doesn't much care past about the 6th ranked spot. (They dropped #15 Texas in a NY6 Bowl for heavens sake). But that changes with 12 schools in the playoff. Nobody knows what that means at the G5 level. Will it continue as it shakes out now, or will it be more of an open free for all?

The odds are not really much different. Look at Wichita State. I think the odds of them making the tourney are pretty similar had they staid in the MVC as in joining the AAC. That is instructive.

If you're talking about what Boise fans care about, I think you're right. If you're talking about what the Boise administration wants, though, I'd push back on that. The fact that the AAC has managed to get the financial windfall of getting the NY6 share in 5 of the last 7 years has put millions of dollars into each football playing member's coffers (and presumably played a part in also securing a higher media rights payout than the MWC). So while I, as a USF fan, don't particularly relish seeing Central Florida go to 2 NY6 bowls, I know that USF has benefitted from having them there, just like we did by having Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston go as well. That helped us be able to afford to buy out Charlie Strong.

So would Boise have an easier path to the new CFP as a member of the AAC? Of course not. Would they potentially make more money as a member of the AAC, though? I think so (I don't know enough of the details of their unbalanced deal with the MWC to know for sure). The question is whether that additional money makes it worth their while. Those decisions, for better or worse, aren't made by the fans at all, but rather by the administration. As Frank often says, think like a president.

USFFan

The money that you're hoping the AAC gets would be divided 12 ways (if Boise or another team joins the AAC), and a 1/12 share of that money is not a whole lot when weighed against the costs of changing conferences and playing in a conference where every opponent is 1,000 to 2,500 miles away. Look up the money a conference makes when teams in the league do really well in March Madness. Now divide that amount by 12 (or 14 or whatever), and each school's share is just a nice little bonus, it's not life-changing money.

What would bring in more money to any one school is their own team making the playoff.* That leads to a helluva lot more ticket revenue and donations. That money would far exceed the share a team would get if a conference-mate makes the playoff, and that's what a president or AD is aiming for if they have a strong football team. Making the playoff even once or twice would also be a giant boost to football recruiting which helps to extend the run of good football seasons going forward.

That's thinking like a president or athletic director. Wanting to acquire new members to boost the image of a conference is thinking like a conference commissioner who just wants to claim victory when one of "his" teams makes the playoff and doesn't care which team it is.

* Obviously if a team has no hope of ever making the playoff wherever they are, then the pros and cons are different, but this discussion is not about recruiting new members who have no hope of ever making the playoff.

(06-12-2021 09:14 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Well, Boise State has a president and they still aren’t in the American.

True. But the new CFP plans were only revealed a couple of days ago.

USFFan

Yes and the likelihood of a MWC champ making the playoffs is now greater.

(06-12-2021 12:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:14 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Well, Boise State has a president and they still aren’t in the American.

True. But the new CFP plans were only revealed a couple of days ago.

USFFan

Yes and the likelihood of a MWC champ making the playoffs is now greater.

Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl---so much so that Boise was talking to the AAC about moving to the AAC. Just sayin....basically the new CFP proposal changes the stakes---not the logic. That said---Boise still has no place for their olympic sports if they take the "football only" slot the AAC is willing to offer---so, the same impasse remains.

Boise State still has the brand and reputation as the G5 darling. All they need to do is win the MWC. They don’t need to travel across the country to accomplish that. They did it twice in the BCS and once in the CFP era and have a 3-0 record.

(06-12-2021 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:14 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Well, Boise State has a president and they still aren’t in the American.

True. But the new CFP plans were only revealed a couple of days ago.

USFFan

Yes and the likelihood of a MWC champ making the playoffs is now greater.

Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl---so much so that Boise was talking to the AAC about moving to the AAC. Just sayin....basically the new CFP proposal changes the stakes---not the logic. That said---Boise still has no place for their olympic sports if they take the "football only" slot the AAC is willing to offer---so, the same impasse remains.

An impasse which can be resolved with a little American intervention. Sweeten the pot by offering the Big West annual series in basketball, volleyball and baseball. Or it can offer to cover Boise's travel subsidies. The AAC is a wannabe p6, it's pennies to them

(06-12-2021 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

(06-12-2021 02:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

So you're saying it's ok for the "Power Conferences" to scream strength for schedule but, not for the American Conference. I see what you did there. Hypocritical much?

(06-12-2021 02:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

Then why did it take an undefeated Marshall 4 CFP polls to even get ranked---and when they were finally included in the CFP poll---they were ranked behind a 1-loss Boise? SOS perhaps?

If you include Boise, BYU, and SDSU all in the AAC---the winner of the AAC is going to get a level of deference because the Committee members will recognize exactly what you stated----It's harder to be undefeated in the AAC than it is in the Sunbelt. I mean---we arent talking about a relatively meaningless access bowl game that doesnt really matter---we will be talking about playoff berths. I think you are underestimating how serious the committee will be taking this. They aren't just going to count wins and be done with it. I think its a little silly to think thats all the effort the committee will put into filling the bracket.

Look, if I look in my crystal ball---I dont think its going to happen. My sense is that the AAC feels it will get that slot most of the time as currently comprised at 11. They dont really feel any need to take anyone they dont feel enhances their brand and they arent willing to take on the expense of long distant "all sports" invitations in the west. If BYU or Boise wants to fill that slot as a "football only"--the AAC would be eager to accept them as those would absolutely enhance the AAC brand. Otherwise---as there is no available school that enhances the AAC brand in the east---the AAC appears to be just fine with taking their current line up "as is" into the new playoff era. Right now--the ball is on BYU's (or Boise's) side of the court.

(06-12-2021 12:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:30 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 03:28 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  But, each team is pulling for itself, not for a conference. Boise wants Boise to be in the playoff. Boise is, at best, neutral on whether any other team makes the playoff. The pitch to them can't be, "Join us and help Cincinnati or Houston make the playoff." What would be persuasive is if someone could demonstrate to Boise that Boise's own playoff chances are 5x or 10x better in the AAC.

Wedge,

You are talking to AAC fans. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that they can only see what is good for them, but are completely incapable of seeing the point of view of anyone else. It's a bubble.

I think it's a wash for Boise State. They probably have a better chance of running the table in the MWC and getting a high rank than if they had to slog through the four best AAC schools. They are going to be the top team in the MWC every other year and in contention for the playoff spot; but likely only once every 4 or 5 years be the top team in the AAC and in contention. Even if the AAC is 5x as likely as the MWC to get that top spot, the statistical odds are pretty much the same for Boise State. [1]

And we really don't know if the playoff committee is going to give extra weight to the AAC top school, or if they are going to elevate the G5 school with fewer losses regardless of conference. Right now the AP plays an outsized role in ranking because the committee doesn't much care past about the 6th ranked spot. (They dropped #15 Texas in a NY6 Bowl for heavens sake). But that changes with 12 schools in the playoff. Nobody knows what that means at the G5 level. Will it continue as it shakes out now, or will it be more of an open free for all?

The odds are not really much different. Look at Wichita State. I think the odds of them making the tourney are pretty similar had they staid in the MVC as in joining the AAC. That is instructive.

If you're talking about what Boise fans care about, I think you're right. If you're talking about what the Boise administration wants, though, I'd push back on that. The fact that the AAC has managed to get the financial windfall of getting the NY6 share in 5 of the last 7 years has put millions of dollars into each football playing member's coffers (and presumably played a part in also securing a higher media rights payout than the MWC). So while I, as a USF fan, don't particularly relish seeing Central Florida go to 2 NY6 bowls, I know that USF has benefitted from having them there, just like we did by having Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston go as well. That helped us be able to afford to buy out Charlie Strong.

So would Boise have an easier path to the new CFP as a member of the AAC? Of course not. Would they potentially make more money as a member of the AAC, though? I think so (I don't know enough of the details of their unbalanced deal with the MWC to know for sure). The question is whether that additional money makes it worth their while. Those decisions, for better or worse, aren't made by the fans at all, but rather by the administration. As Frank often says, think like a president.

USFFan

The money that you're hoping the AAC gets would be divided 12 ways (if Boise or another team joins the AAC), and a 1/12 share of that money is not a whole lot when weighed against the costs of changing conferences and playing in a conference where every opponent is 1,000 to 2,500 miles away. Look up the money a conference makes when teams in the league do really well in March Madness. Now divide that amount by 12 (or 14 or whatever), and each school's share is just a nice little bonus, it's not life-changing money.

What would bring in more money to any one school is their own team making the playoff.* That leads to a helluva lot more ticket revenue and donations. That money would far exceed the share a team would get if a conference-mate makes the playoff, and that's what a president or AD is aiming for if they have a strong football team. Making the playoff even once or twice would also be a giant boost to football recruiting which helps to extend the run of good football seasons going forward.

That's thinking like a president or athletic director. Wanting to acquire new members to boost the image of a conference is thinking like a conference commissioner who just wants to claim victory when one of "his" teams makes the playoff and doesn't care which team it is.

* Obviously if a team has no hope of ever making the playoff wherever they are, then the pros and cons are different, but this discussion is not about recruiting new members who have no hope of ever making the playoff.

Not sure if you considered all the elements to that. Mississippi and Northwestern have made a combined zero playoff appearances and have played for exactly zero national championships in the CFP era.

If they don't think they've benefitted from Alabama and Ohio State making the playoffs and winning championships, then there are a few of us that would be ok switching places with them. Those media dollars don't come from Mississippi eyeballs.

A 1-loss Cincinnati would have been jumped by an undefeated Coastal Carolina this past season. Think about that. One program has been around for a hundred years and the other has been FBS for as long as it takes to microwave popcorn.

No G5 program is going to stake their future on the possibility they can get in the playoffs with losses.

“Playoffs, who said anything about playoffs.” - Jim Mora

(06-12-2021 04:48 PM)esayem Wrote:  A 1-loss Cincinnati would have been jumped by an undefeated Coastal Carolina this past season. Think about that. One program has been around for a hundred years and the other has been FBS for as long as it takes to microwave popcorn.

No G5 program is going to stake their future on the possibility they can get in the playoffs with losses.

Could have, would have, should have.

The 2020 season should not be considered normal.

Even after all that was odd and went wrong last year, Coastal didnt jump Cincinnati.

(06-12-2021 04:48 PM)esayem Wrote:  A 1-loss Cincinnati would have been jumped by an undefeated Coastal Carolina this past season. Think about that. One program has been around for a hundred years and the other has been FBS for as long as it takes to microwave popcorn.

No G5 program is going to stake their future on the possibility they can get in the playoffs with losses.

Ok, but if Coastal would have remained undefeated along with UC, the Bearcats would have still been ahead of them.

(06-12-2021 03:38 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:30 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 03:28 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  But, each team is pulling for itself, not for a conference. Boise wants Boise to be in the playoff. Boise is, at best, neutral on whether any other team makes the playoff. The pitch to them can't be, "Join us and help Cincinnati or Houston make the playoff." What would be persuasive is if someone could demonstrate to Boise that Boise's own playoff chances are 5x or 10x better in the AAC.

Wedge,

You are talking to AAC fans. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that they can only see what is good for them, but are completely incapable of seeing the point of view of anyone else. It's a bubble.

I think it's a wash for Boise State. They probably have a better chance of running the table in the MWC and getting a high rank than if they had to slog through the four best AAC schools. They are going to be the top team in the MWC every other year and in contention for the playoff spot; but likely only once every 4 or 5 years be the top team in the AAC and in contention. Even if the AAC is 5x as likely as the MWC to get that top spot, the statistical odds are pretty much the same for Boise State. [1]

And we really don't know if the playoff committee is going to give extra weight to the AAC top school, or if they are going to elevate the G5 school with fewer losses regardless of conference. Right now the AP plays an outsized role in ranking because the committee doesn't much care past about the 6th ranked spot. (They dropped #15 Texas in a NY6 Bowl for heavens sake). But that changes with 12 schools in the playoff. Nobody knows what that means at the G5 level. Will it continue as it shakes out now, or will it be more of an open free for all?

The odds are not really much different. Look at Wichita State. I think the odds of them making the tourney are pretty similar had they staid in the MVC as in joining the AAC. That is instructive.

If you're talking about what Boise fans care about, I think you're right. If you're talking about what the Boise administration wants, though, I'd push back on that. The fact that the AAC has managed to get the financial windfall of getting the NY6 share in 5 of the last 7 years has put millions of dollars into each football playing member's coffers (and presumably played a part in also securing a higher media rights payout than the MWC). So while I, as a USF fan, don't particularly relish seeing Central Florida go to 2 NY6 bowls, I know that USF has benefitted from having them there, just like we did by having Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston go as well. That helped us be able to afford to buy out Charlie Strong.

So would Boise have an easier path to the new CFP as a member of the AAC? Of course not. Would they potentially make more money as a member of the AAC, though? I think so (I don't know enough of the details of their unbalanced deal with the MWC to know for sure). The question is whether that additional money makes it worth their while. Those decisions, for better or worse, aren't made by the fans at all, but rather by the administration. As Frank often says, think like a president.

USFFan

The money that you're hoping the AAC gets would be divided 12 ways (if Boise or another team joins the AAC), and a 1/12 share of that money is not a whole lot when weighed against the costs of changing conferences and playing in a conference where every opponent is 1,000 to 2,500 miles away. Look up the money a conference makes when teams in the league do really well in March Madness. Now divide that amount by 12 (or 14 or whatever), and each school's share is just a nice little bonus, it's not life-changing money.

What would bring in more money to any one school is their own team making the playoff.* That leads to a helluva lot more ticket revenue and donations. That money would far exceed the share a team would get if a conference-mate makes the playoff, and that's what a president or AD is aiming for if they have a strong football team. Making the playoff even once or twice would also be a giant boost to football recruiting which helps to extend the run of good football seasons going forward.

That's thinking like a president or athletic director. Wanting to acquire new members to boost the image of a conference is thinking like a conference commissioner who just wants to claim victory when one of "his" teams makes the playoff and doesn't care which team it is.

* Obviously if a team has no hope of ever making the playoff wherever they are, then the pros and cons are different, but this discussion is not about recruiting new members who have no hope of ever making the playoff.

Not sure if you considered all the elements to that. Mississippi and Northwestern have made a combined zero playoff appearances and have played for exactly zero national championships in the CFP era.

If they don't think they've benefitted from Alabama and Ohio State making the playoffs and winning championships, then there are a few of us that would be ok switching places with them. Those media dollars don't come from Mississippi eyeballs.

You didn't read the part after the asterisk.

(06-12-2021 04:48 PM)esayem Wrote:  A 1-loss Cincinnati would have been jumped by an undefeated Coastal Carolina this past season. Think about that. One program has been around for a hundred years and the other has been FBS for as long as it takes to microwave popcorn.

No G5 program is going to stake their future on the possibility they can get in the playoffs with losses.

That's right. To be precise, none of them are going to burn all their bridges and join a conference on the other side of the country, pay an exit fee, and pay an entrance fee, all based on the dubious theory that if they win the conference with 2 losses, they are guaranteed to be chosen over undefeated or one loss teams from their current conference.

(06-12-2021 02:08 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

So you're saying it's ok for the "Power Conferences" to scream strength for schedule but, not for the American Conference. I see what you did there. Hypocritical much?

It took it to mean that this is how the committee operates.

Seriously, if the AAC's champ has the same number of losses as another G5 league's champ, the AAC champ would get the Access Bowl/CFP bid. But that's as far as strength of schedule will take an AAC team with the way the committee operates.

If, say, the Sun Belt champion has the fewest losses among all the G5 champs, that SB champ is in.

Boise fans definitely won’t fit in with other posters on this board hahahahaha. Boise is definitely not a “conference first” fan like AAC fans. It’s a strange phenomenon. SEC SEC SEC fans were always such a joke to everyone else. I get it kinda...(Southern culture) But AAC fans take the cake. I mean the majority of the posters on here root for the conference over their own team. Some don’t even have a team (Jed) It wasn’t like that when we were called CUSA. Ok, Tallgrass and Big East Homer. Though Tallgrass was a Tulsa fan, BEH didn’t have a team, he rooted for every single school in the conference...except one school that he absolutely hated lol.

(06-12-2021 06:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:08 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

So you're saying it's ok for the "Power Conferences" to scream strength for schedule but, not for the American Conference. I see what you did there. Hypocritical much?

It took it to mean that this is how the committee operates.

Seriously, if the AAC's champ has the same number of losses as another G5 league's champ, the AAC champ would get the Access Bowl/CFP bid. But that's as far as strength of schedule will take an AAC team with the way the committee operates.

If, say, the Sun Belt champion has the fewest losses among all the G5 champs, that SB champ is in.

We already know this isn't true, because the committee itself told us.

When Navy entered the championship game against Temple, the committee announced that Navy win would delay the major bowl announcements till immediately after Navy/Army.

The committee stated that Navy's strength of schedule (two losses, one to ND) with wins over AAC teams and should they beat Army would be enough to threaten an undefeated MAC champion Western Michigan's bid.

The CFP ranking has frequently had two AAC teams ranked above the next best G4 team whether undefeated or not and even against darling Boise St with a better record than one if the AAC teams. The simple fact is the CFP has considered the access spot defacto AAC based on the same logic that has allowed multiple SEC play off teams. The games mean more in comparison to other conferences (the p5 for SEC the g5 for the AAC). The AAC has finished as the fifth or sixth best overall rated conference almost every year. Simply put our SOS based on conference alone has been superior to any other g5, with an outrageous winning percentage against them, and more games against the p5 in ooc.

(06-12-2021 07:21 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Boise fans definitely won’t fit in with other posters on this board hahahahaha. Boise is definitely not a “conference first” fan like AAC fans. It’s a strange phenomenon. SEC SEC SEC fans were always such a joke to everyone else. I get it kinda...(Southern culture) But AAC fans take the cake. I mean the majority of the posters on here root for the conference over their own team. Some don’t even have a team (Jed) It wasn’t like that when we were called CUSA. Ok, Tallgrass and Big East Homer. Though Tallgrass was a Tulsa fan, BEH didn’t have a team, he rooted for every single school in the conference...except one school that he absolutely hated lol.

We root for the conference when the overall benefit is better than our individual team can gain from the win, even then it tends to be like this last year. Every non-Tulsa fan cheered for Cincy, Tulsa fans were pulling for us to win, but didn't think the AAC champ getting the Access bowl was a bad consolation prize.

(06-12-2021 06:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:08 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 02:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Correct----its now similar to their shot at making the access bowl under the current system......which, by the way, has been substantially lower than the chances that the AAC champ will get to the access bowl

That's not it.

The most important factor, by far, in the committee's selection of teams for the access bowl has been: Having the fewest losses. That won't change no matter how many teams are in the playoff.

Trying to collect every non-P5 team with a shot at the playoff and putting them all in the same conference would be counterproductive. More good teams in the same conference means more good teams taking more losses. It would greatly increase the possibility of the conference champ having more losses than the champs of other conferences and watching the champ of some other conference snag that playoff spot -- unless a conference has some conspiracy where one team is designated the playoff contender for that year and the other good teams (or, ahem, the referees) just let the designated team win. But I wouldn't count on that conspiracy happening very often.

So you're saying it's ok for the "Power Conferences" to scream strength for schedule but, not for the American Conference. I see what you did there. Hypocritical much?

It took it to mean that this is how the committee operates.

Seriously, if the AAC's champ has the same number of losses as another G5 league's champ, the AAC champ would get the Access Bowl/CFP bid. But that's as far as strength of schedule will take an AAC team with the way the committee operates.

If, say, the Sun Belt champion has the fewest losses among all the G5 champs, that SB champ is in.

I just love the hypocrisy and condescention towards the AAC and their fans. The AAC will get told their strength of schedule isn't enough. Yet most of the Power Conferences are built in cupcakes. Literally half the Power 5 would be middle of the pack in the AAC.

Yet every time a fan of the AAC gets their hopes up for anything, the Fans of these weak ass Power Schools chime in to disparage and berate the AAC fans. Not to mention the fans of the rest of the group of 5 chiming in because they're jealous of the AAC and fear their success.
It's just sad.