(04-25-2021 08:20 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 12:38 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 10:48 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 01:14 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 09:14 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Lol...

If this league would quit crapping the bed OOC (including Memphis) then in league games would matter. We cant blame ESPN for that

You've missed the point, which is that the pre-season rankings and pre-tournament seedings have systematically overestimated the quality of the ranked and seeded P5 teams, while systematically underestimating the quality of the ranked/unranked and seeded/unseeded non-P5 teams.

This has been a pervasive, persistent, and growing problem since the P5 came into existence.

For example:

........Number of non-P5 FB teams listed in the AP Top 25

.............Preseason AP Top 25.......Final AP Top 25..........Error Margin


2013..........1 non-P5 team............1 non-P5 teams........0 non-P5 teams

2014..........0 non-P5 teams...........3 non-P5 teams.......3 non-P5 teams

2015..........1 non-P5 teams...........3 non-P5 teams.......2 non-P5 teams

2016..........0 non-P5 teams..........3 non-P5 teams........3 non-P5 teams

2017..........1 non-P5 team............4 non-P5 teams........3 non-P5 teams

2018..........2 non-P5 teams...........6 non-P5 teams.......4 non-P5 teams

2019..........1 non-P5 teams...........7 non-P5 teams.......6 non-P5 teams

2020..........2 non-P5 teams...........8 non-P5 teams.......6 non-P5 teams


What the data in this table show is that, as a group, the sports journalists that vote in the pre-season football AP poll have been getting worse and worse at predicting how many non-P5 teams there would be in the final AP top 25 poll.

They have only increased the number of non-P5 teams in the pre-season polls very slightly since 2013, and their pre-season rankings suggest that they failed to take any notice of the fact that the number of non-P5 teams in the Final AP Top 25 increased seven-fold (i.e., by 600%) between 2013 and 2019.

.

Moreover, the claim that the AAC has had a "bad" OOC record is inaccurate. If it had, it wouldn't be the #6 FBS conference and the #7 D1 MBB conference.

No the point is the computer doesn't care about pre-season human polls.

So in order to get Q1 wins this conference cant crap the bed out of conference.

Don't crap the bed out of conference and teams would have many more opportunities to get Q1 wins...And the all important ability to get Q1 wins at home.

You haven't interpreted the data in the table yet. Instead, you've brushed it aside as if it's impertinent.

Based on the way you've chosen not to delve into the table, I assume that you haven't "grokked" it yet.

If you did "grok" it, you would know that the data show a tremendous and growing lack of correspondence between the pre-season and post-season polls over the past 8 years, with the lack of correspondence showing a consistent bias in favor of the P5 teams.

If you have - - please do share your thoughts on what the data show.

.

Now, on to the points you're trying to make.

Are you right in pointing out that winning more OOC games would help boost the AAC's reputation? Undeniably correct.

However, is that all there is to it? I don't think so.

Why not? Because, while the lower half of the AAC has struggled against P5 teams, the lower echelon teams in the P5 conferences have also struggled. The struggles of lower-tier conference teams are by no means not unique to the AAC or the non-P5 conferences.

Here are the Big Ten standings from the 2020 season (all P5 vs. P5 games):

East:

Ohio State 7-1 (.875)
Indiana 6-2 (.750)
Maryland 2-3 (.400) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)
Penn State 4-5 (.444) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)
Michigan 2-4 (.333) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)
Rutgers 3-6 (.333) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)
Michigan St. 2-5 (.286) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)

West:

Iowa 6-2 (.750)
Northwestern 6-2 (.750)
Wisconsin 3-3 (.500)
Minnesota 3-4 (.429) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)
Nebraska 3-5 (.375) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)
Purdue 2-4 (.333) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)
Illinois 2-6 (.250) ("crapped the bed" vs. P5 teams)

SUMMARY: 9 (64.3%) of 14 Big Ten teams played poorly vs. P5 teams.

.

We are rated poorly by the computers as well.

Let's just be clear about this point - - the science/engineering of artificial intelligence hasn't advanced to the point at which computers can rate teams.

Computers just run algorithms in accordance with mathematical formulae that are created by their human programmers and spit out the results.

Many of the formulae that have been used (e.g., the RPI, etc.) have turned out to be inaccurate/unreliable (low to modest validity and reliability), and none of them have been found to be particularly satisfactory.

That's why so many of the NCAA selection committee's seedings often bore relatively little relation to the the teams' NET rankings. The committee knows better than to put too much faith in the flawed computer rankings, which are nothing more than "mechanical guesstimates."

Bear this in mind, as well: Some of the "computerized" rankings systems, such as the NET, have a massive "fudge factor." That's why the NCAA refuses to release the details of the NET ranking procedures.

There's a good reason why we have this expression: "Garbage in, garbage out."

.